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

[rpd] Policy Development Draft Agenda for AfriNIC 25

Dewole Ajao dewole at
Sun Dec 4 11:30:19 UTC 2016

Thank you for the email, SM; And for your active participation at the recent public policy meeting. 

Receipt of staff impact analysis a minimum of two weeks before PPM is a reasonable suggestion as it gives authors a full week to incorporate feedback before the no-modification date. 

As the community now looks to improve the consensus building approach, an even more efficient route could be to work more with AFRINIC staff in the production of the first draft (to ensure that proposals presented to the community are unambiguous, implementable and non-conflicting). For transparency and crowdsourcing of insights, this preliminary process leading to the first draft proposal can take place on the RPD. 

We should take up the discussion on voting and clarity of decisions under a different thread. I believe the expected outcomes for that discussion are better guidance for the co-chairs and a more detailed process that helps us agree on an approach for determining what consensus should look like while taking into account discussions on the RPD mailing list as well as PPM commentary. 

Have a beautiful week ahead, everyone. 


Sent from a mobile device. Please excuse typos and autocorrect strangeness. 

> On 3 Dec 2016, at 6:05 PM, sm+afrinic at wrote:
> Hi Sami, Dewole,
> I would like to congratulate both of you for the work which you have done as Working Group Chairs during the last public policy meeting.  I don't think that the two objections from a director of Afrinic Ltd were valid.  I preferred not to argue about that as it would make future discussions more difficult.
> I suggest requesting Afrinic Ltd to publish an analysis of the impact of each draft policy at least two weeks before the agenda for the public policy meeting is announced.  The purpose is to give the author of the draft policy enough time to make changes to the draft.
> It looked like the tradition of the Working Group is to rely on voting to take a decision.  Some of the decisions of the Working Group Chairs during the discussions were not clear.   There was an assessment from an independent law firm which contains an incorrect description of the policy development process.  I leave it to the members of Afrinic Ltd to see whether it would be useful to do anything about these implementation issues.
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy

More information about the RPD mailing list