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

[rpd] Comments on AFPUB-2020-GEN-004-DRAFT01 - Board Prerogatives on the PDP

Fri Oct 2 08:01:59 UTC 2020

Hi Daniel (responding also to Ish), all,

Could you explain how it is that interference created by this proposal?

My understanding of section 3.4 is that it is to foster the education and promotion on policy matters.

The policies itself and all the related aspects are governed by ICANN ICP-2, which is the only reason why AFRINIC has been created and if this is not fulfilled, AFRINIC existence will be in doubt, at a minimum.

ICP-2 clearly indicates that it must be following a community (not membership) consensus bottom-up approach.

In fact, this is being recognized in the bylaws with section 11, where basically is describing the oversight function on the PDP/policy, and states “ the Board may adopt such policies regarding the management of internet number resources where it considers that the same is necessary and urgent, having regard to the proper and responsible usage of these resources”. Note the “management of Internet number resources” (by the way there is a typo there, it should be Internet, not internet).

So, the proposal is actually reinforcing that and ensuring that there is not any wrong interpretation, allowing the board to continue doing whatever is needed for the complete PDP, *BUT* remembering that it must be done according to what the bylaws already say (11.5):

“Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article11.4 shall be submitted to the community for endorsement at the next public policy meeting.”

Further to all that, section 3.2 and 3.4.1 of the PDP reinforce this.

If we just update 3.5, as Ish suggested, we will be only resolving the issue of the Appeal Committee. As indicated in the proposal those are examples, to justify the need of the proposal with facts, but this situation happen/may happen with other parts of the CPM and should be avoided.

This proposal is ensuring that the PDP exlicitly authorize the board to do what the bylaws already say, not contradicting them. The contradiction exist today because the bylaws authorize the board to do something (which they are not following in full), that the PDP is not authorizing. The bylaws are a membership matter, the PDP is a community one. The community has bigger scope than the membership so it is insane that the “membership” can “enforce” the community to do anything without the community approval. Again this is what the bylaws are recognizing already!

If you could explain the contradiction, may be I’m missing something else?




El 28/9/20 20:09, "Murungi Daniel" <dmurungi at> escribió:

Dear Jodi,

Am against this proposal.

IMHO, this as an attempt to interfere with the powers of the board contrary to the Bylaws in section 3.4.



IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list