Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AfriNIC-rpd] Policy Development Process in the AfriNIC service region (draft version 3)

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at
Fri May 14 17:25:24 UTC 2010


This document looks good, and I believe it captures all of the 
essentials of an RIR PDP.  A few minor comments:

It may be worthwhile under 5.1 to explicitly mention that draft policy 
documents are also posted to the RPD list in addition to being posted on 
the website.  Something like "During the development of a policy, draft 
versions of the document are made available for review and comment by 
publishing them on the AfriNIC website and posting them to the Resource 
Policy Discussion mailing list."  This follows existing practice, but I 
believe it's important to require mailing list posting to ensure that 
the community is aware of proposed drafts, without having to closely 
monitor the website.

Your Incentive section states that, under the current PDP, "The steps 
used to determine consensus leads to a situation where comments provided 
during online discussions do not bear the same weight as those made 
during the public policy meeting."  However, as I read 5.2-5.4, the new 
PDP only bases consensus on feedback received during the PPM and during 
last call, and ignores comments made on the RPD list prior to the PPM.  
If that is how you (and more importantly, the AfriNIC community) want it 
to work, that's fine, but my experience with the PDP in the ARIN region 
is that it's important to also consider mailing list comments in 
determining whether to send a proposal to last call.  The last call 
period can then be used to raise any remaining objections that were not 
adequately addressed on the mailing list discussion or at the PPM.

In section 7, I think you meant "waiving" instead of "waving".


On Wed 5/12/2010 1:34 AM, sm+afrinic at wrote:
> Hello,
> This is version 3 of the policy proposal for the Policy Development 
> Process.  I listed the changes in Appendix B to facilitate the 
> discussion.  In the event the proposal is approved, I would like to 
> remove that appendix from the final version if the PDP-MG agrees to that.
> The major changes to this version have been discussed on this mailing 
> list.  Please comment on the document.  Please email me if any 
> proposed change is missing or the change is incorrectly worded in the 
> document.
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> Your Name: S. Moonesamy
> Your Organisation:
> Policy Affected: AFPUB-2008-GEN-001
> Date: 11 May, 2010
> Proposal: Policy Development Process in the AfriNIC service region
> Incentive:
> The initial policy development process (AFPUB-2004-GEN-001) used by 
> AfriNIC was meant to be a transitional process.   A revised policy was 
> specified once AfriNIC was well established.  The existing policy 
> (AFPUB-2008-GEN-001) does not specify what should be done in the event 
> that the PDP-MG cannot attend an public policy meeting or if a person 
> disagrees with an action taken by the PDP-MG.
> The lack of information affects the transparency of the policy 
> development process.  It has a negative impact on the decision-making 
> process as issues that have been discussed and resolved on the mailing 
> list are reopened during the public policy meeting because the 
> community is not aware of the mailing list discussions.  There is also 
> a lack of documentation about the procedures used, and the approval 
> and implementation of a policy.
> The steps used to determine consensus leads to a situation where 
> comments provided during online discussions do not bear the same 
> weight as those made during the public policy meeting.
> There is also a lack of awareness and a lack of understanding of the 
> principles upon which the policy development process are based.  
> Although the existing policy does not explicitly mention the 
> principles, it follows the same principles mentioned in this document.
> It is proposed to revise the existing policy so that the principles 
> and procedures are documented.  This document adds procedures to the 
> policy development process to deal with disputes and the recall of the 
> Chair.  It also adds some flexibility to vary the process in the case 
> of an emergency.
> 1. Introduction
> This document describes the AfriNIC Policy Development Process (PDP).
> The policies are documented AfriNIC community decisions that directly 
> determine the rules by which AfriNIC manages and administers Internet 
> number resources.
> The procedures described in this document are designed to be fair, 
> open and objective and are intended to:
>   (i) provide ample opportunity for participation and comment by all
>       interested parties;
>   (ii) establish widespread Internet community consensus.
> These procedures adopt generally accepted practices and provide the 
> flexibility to adapt to a variety of circumstances that can occur in a 
> process.  This document obsoletes AFPUB-2008-GEN-001.
> 2. Scope
> Internet number resource policies are distinctly separate from AfriNIC 
> general business practices and procedures. General business practices 
> and procedures are not within the purview of the Policy Development 
> Process.
> 3. Policy Development Principles
> All policies are developed by the Internet community following three 
> principles: openness, transparency and fairness.  The Internet 
> community initiates and discusses the proposals.  If consensus is 
> reached on the draft policy, it is recommended to the AfriNIC Board of 
> Directors for adoption as a policy.
> 3.1 Openness
> All policies are developed in an open forum in which anyone may 
> participate. There are no qualifications for participation.
> 3.2 Transparency
> All aspects of the Policy Development Process are documented and 
> publicly available via the AfriNIC website. The discussions are 
> publicly archived.  All procedures that are developed to implement the 
> policy are documented by AfriNIC and are publicly available.
> 3.3 Fairness
> The policies are to ensure fair distribution of resources and 
> facilitating the operation of the Internet.
> Actions are taken within a reasonable period of time.
> 4. Policy Development Working Group
> The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) discusses about the 
> proposals.   Anyone may participate via the Internet or in person.   
> The work is carried out through the Resource Policy Discussion mailing 
> list (RPD) and the Public Policy Meeting (PPM).
> The Policy Development Working Group has two or more Chairs to perform 
> the administrative functions of the group.  The Working Group Chairs 
> will be chosen by the AfriNIC community during the Public Policy 
> Meeting for a two-year term.  The term ends during the first Public 
> Policy Meeting meeting corresponding to the end of the term for which 
> they were appointed.   At the time this policy is adopted, one of the 
> Working Group Chairs will be appointed for a one-year term.
> If the Working Group Chair is unable to serve his or her full term, 
> the Working Group may select a replacement to serve the remainder of 
> the term.  If the Working Group Chairs are unable to attend the Public 
> Policy Meeting, the Working Group shall nominate a Chair for the session.
> 5. Policy Development Process
> Policy proposals can be submitted to the Resource Policy Discussion 
> mailing list.  AfriNIC will provide administrative support and assist 
> the author(s) in drafting the proposal, if requested.  AfriNIC shall 
> also provide relevant facts and statistics if requested during the 
> discussion.
> 5.1 Draft Policy
> During the development of a policy, draft versions of the document are 
> made available for review and comment by publishing them on the 
> AfriNIC website.  The document shall include the information mentioned 
> in Appendix A.  Each draft policy is assigned a unique identifier by 
> AfriNIC.  The website shall also contain the version history and the 
> status of all proposals.
> The draft policy shall be available for review for at least four weeks 
> before the next Public Policy Meeting.  The author(s) shall make the 
> necessary changes to the draft policy according to the feedback 
> received.  The Working Group Chair(s) may request AfriNIC to provide 
> an analysis, technical, financial, legal or other, of the impact of 
> the draft policy.
> A draft policy expires after one calendar year unless it is approved 
> by the AfriNIC Board of Directors as a policy.  The timeout period is 
> restarted when the draft policy is replaced by a more recent version 
> of the proposal.  A draft policy can be withdrawn by the author(s) by 
> sending a notification to the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list.
> 5.2 Public Policy Meeting
> The draft policy is placed on the agenda of the next open public 
> policy meeting.  The agenda of the meeting shall be announced on the 
> Resource Policy Discussion mailing list at least two weeks prior to 
> the meeting.  No change can be made to a draft policy within one week 
> of the meeting.  This is so that a stable version of the draft policy 
> can be considered at the meeting.  The Chair(s) determines whether 
> rough consensus has been achieved during the Public Policy Meeting.
> The Chair(s) shall publish the minutes of proceedings of the Public 
> Policy Meeting not later than three weeks after the meeting.
> 5.3 Last Call
> A final review of the draft policy is initiated by the Working Group 
> Chair(s) by sending an announcement to the Resource Policy Discussion 
> mailing list.  The Last Call period shall be at least two weeks.  The 
> Working Group Chair(s) shall evaluate the feedback received during the 
> Public Policy Meeting and during this period and decide whether 
> consensus has been achieved.
> 5.4 Approval
> The Working Group Chair(s) shall recommend the draft policy to the 
> AfriNIC Board of Directors for approval if it has the consensus of the 
> Policy Development Working Group.  The recommendation shall include a 
> report of the discussions of the draft policy and feedback from the 
> Last Call.  The draft policy shall be ratified by the AfriNIC Board of 
> Directors.
> 5.5 Implementation
> The adoption and implementation date of the policy is announced on the 
> Resource Policy Discussion mailing list.  The implementation date 
> should be less than six months after the end of the Last Call unless a 
> waiver is requested.
> 6. Conflict Resolution
> A person who disagrees with the actions taken by the Chair(s) shall 
> discuss the matter with the Working Group Chair(s) or with the Working 
> Group.  If the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, the person 
> may file an appeal with an Appeal Committee appointed by the AfriNIC 
> Board of Directors.  An appeal can only be filed if it is supported by 
> three persons from the Working Group who have participated in the 
> discussions.
> The appeal must be submitted within two weeks of the public knowledge 
> of the decision.  The Appeal Committee shall issue a report on its 
> review of the complaint to the Working Group.  The Appeal Committee 
> may direct that the Chair(s) decision be annulled if the Policy 
> Development Process has not been followed.
> Anyone who has attended at least two of the last ten AfriNIC meetings 
> may request the recall of a Working Group Chair at any time, upon 
> written request with justification to the AfriNIC Board of 
> Directors.   The AfriNIC Board of Directors shall appoint a recall 
> committee, excluding the person requesting the recall and the Working 
> Group Chairs.  The recall committee shall investigate the 
> circumstances of the justification for the recall and determine the 
> outcome.
> 7. Varying the Process
> The process outlined in this document may vary in the case of an 
> emergency.  Variance may be requested by the Working Group Chair or 
> the AfriNIC Board of Directors and is for use when a one-time waving 
> of some provision of this document is required.  There must be an 
> explanation about why the variance is needed.  The review period, 
> including the Last Call, shall not be less than four weeks.  If the 
> policy is adopted, it must be presented at the next Public Policy 
> Meeting for reconsideration.
> 8. Acknowledgements
> The author would like to acknowledge that some text and procedures in 
> this document have been adapted from RFC 2606.  Thanks to Adiel 
> Apklogan and Alain Aina for their insight.  The author only documented 
> the process; full credit belongs to the AfriNIC community.
> Appendix A: Draft Policy Template
> The Draft Policy shall include:
>  1. Unique identifier (assigned by AfriNIC)
>  2. Draft Policy Name
>  3. Author(s)
>     (a) Name
>     (b) Email address
>     (c) Affiliation, if applicable
>  4. Draft Policy Version
>  5. Submission Date
>  6. Changes to existing policies (updates, obsoletes), if applicable
>  7. Summary of proposal
>  8. Proposal
>  9. List of changes between previous versions of the draft, if applicable
> Appendix B: Changes
> Section 4 changed so that replacement of a Chair is done by Working 
> Group instead of Board of Directors
> Section 4 clarifies that Chair is selected by the AfriNIC community
> Section 5.4 changed so that Board of Directors can only approve a policy
> Appeal committee in Section 6 handled by a future appeal body set up 
> by AfriNIC
> Added requirements for appeal in Section 6
> Recall committee in Section 6 appointed by Board of Directors
> Board of Directors can request variance
> Qualified the word community throughout the proposal
> Section 3 clarifies that policies are developed by the Internet community
> OPM changed to PPM
> Added Implementation sub-section
> Added Acknowledgements section
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list