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

[rpd] Policy Proposal: PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures - Draft03 (PDWG Chair)

Paul Hjul hjul.paul at
Tue Nov 16 07:39:49 UTC 2021

> Hello PDWG Members,
> Please note that this new version of the policy Proposal - PDP Working
>> Group and Guidelines from authors Noah Maina and Alain Aina has been given
>> the ID AFPUB-2020-GEN-002-DRAFT04
> The proposal contents are published at:
>> <
> Kind Regards,
> PDWG Co-Chairs.
This policy proposal is in conflict with the proposal
 AFPUB-2021-GEN-002-DRAFT02 and really represents a competing proposal on
several substantive issues. I do not see how rough consensus (yet alone
consensus) can be reached on both policies. As the latter proposal is
considerably closer to an alignment with the values which should underpin
Afrinic; it has my reservation carrying support.

The proposition that the CEO serves as the arbiter of acceptable speech is
untenable, moreover the entire approach of the section is badly framed and
It speaks of an "appeal" to the CEO and then speaks of "complainers". This
is badly ambiguous and unworkable. If a person is alleged to violate the
code of conduct somebody complains (who logically can be referred to as the
complainer, but should be called a complainant) to the co-chairs. The
co-chairs then consider the complaint and make a decision (which decision
is taken without affording audi to the person who against whom the
complaint is made) which if adverse against a person results in posting
rights suspension. That person (who could be called an appellant) can
appeal to the CEO but is he now complaining (a complainer) about the
co-chairs. What of the situation where the co-chairs decline to act? Do the
original complainers have a right to go to the CEO?
This problem is all the more severe if the CEO is engaged in discussions on
the group and is the complainant alleging conduct violations. It is worth
noting that this exact scenario is alive at present.

The proposition that "Actions taken by the board of directors regarding the
appointment process is final and binding" is wholly untenable and
represents an outright demise of both the consensus approach and the notion
that the Community (rather than the organization implementing the policies)
is responsible for policy development. (This is one major point of
incompatibility with AFPUB-2021-GEN-002-DRAFT02). Moreover I don't see how
it can possibly survive legal and various states competition authority
scrutiny. I anticipate that the courts will interpret that as internally
final and therefore the point at which litigation against the organization
is required but I suspect that the intent is to exclude external appeal.
The former will be a risk to the organization and the latter is wholly
unacceptable and is a continuation of the bullshit ( of Afrinic pretending that it is
a statutorily empowered regulator or governing organization.

The proposition that the co-chairs ensure of discussions "that they
converge to consensus agreement" is fatally misconceived. The attainment of
rough consensus entails fairness of process and being heard such that a
workable policy is arrived at which is acceptable if not preferable. Good
faith discussion entails understanding the different views and approaches.
Often it is only through discussion with a view to understanding that any
hope of convergence or consensus can be reached. The introduction of some
manner of predetermined consensus reaching is a massive opening to abuse
and discord.
Paradoxically (and perhaps reflecting the logical disconnects in the
proposal) I am at a loss as to the possible benefit of "For each policy
proposal, one co-chair must be assigned as the primary contact" and fear
that the intended effect is that two factions can operate within the WG
with two competing policies each assigned to one co-chair with each
"guiding" the different policies.  Perhaps what the policy intends is that
each faction will conceive of a proposal which is piloted through to a
point at which they must converge at which point the faction which has the
support of the board is able to have "workshopped" consensus. If this is
the intention the policy will only make such an approach possible with
there being much ugliness in the group.

I therefore am of the view that the sooner this proposal is withdrawn the
sooner it will be practicable to earnestly rebuild the PDWG properly. There
are other issues with this proposal as well which I may raise at the
meeting but I thought it apposite to put forward written comments before
the deadline today.

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

More information about the RPD mailing list