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

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

Taiwo Oye taiwo.oyewande88 at
Tue Nov 16 07:43:48 UTC 2021

Dear authors, 
Kudos on the hard work carried out in bringing out this policy proposal. 

I think some aspects of this policy proposal needs to be rewritten/reviewed or maybe it could just be a bit of clarification needed. 

- a clause in section 3.3.3 as stated below states that a candidate for the co-chair position must have attended Atleast one meeting in person over three years to qualify for this position.

In the era of Covid it is possible that in person meeting might not come back or might take a few more years. If this policy gets ratified as it is. It disqualifies everybody from contesting for this position.
It should be noted that “in person” was further defined in future text in the proposal as physical presence in meeting.  

Candidates for the co-chair’s position should be known as active participants on the working group mailing list with good experience with the AFRINIC policy development process, and must have attended at least two (2) AFRINIC Public Policy Meetings of which one must be in person, during the last 3 years. 

- In the same 3.3.3. There is a clause there that I think can leave a vacuum In d pdp process. 

> If at least one nomination is received by the closing date, the appointment process starts. The appointment must be held at the upcoming Public Policy Meeting as the first item on the agenda. Those present at the session, either in person or remotely, will determine by consensus among the candidates who shall take the available position. The remaining chair will determine whether consensus has been reached. If the working group finds itself without a co-chair, AFRINIC CEO will lead the consensus process.
> If only one candidate is being evaluated, the lack of consensus must declare the seat vacant. The board of directors shall appoint interim co-chair within two weeks after the PPM. The Interim co-chair will act up to the appointment of the new co-chair.

Since the co-chair selection process is to take place in meeting, In the event that one nomination is received, with the CEO leading the consensus process to determine the next co-chair and there is lack of consensus, there is no stated guideline as to who chairs that current ongoing PPM. 

- in the same 3.3.3, there is a voting process that doesn’t involve the entire WG stipulated. 

> If no consensus can be reached and more than one candidate is being evaluated, then an online secret ballot to appoint the new co-chair will be held within two weeks after the PPM. The secret ballot shall be opened to past PDPWG co-chairs, past board of directors chairs and past CEOs who completed at least one term and have not been recalled. Those who served in multiple positions shall have one vote. Votes and counting shall be conducted using a ranked preferential voting method otherwise known as IRV. The winner of the secret ballot will become the new co-chair.

Ithink it is awkward atleast that a voting process is proposed but the entire community is not allowed to exercise their franchise as community members. 

- section 3.3.3 discusses a co-chair selection process that involves 
! consensus determination in meeting
! A reroute back to voting (which the entire community can not participate) if consensus is not determined 
! And a clause (that I don’t seem to understand) that asks one candidate that has passed through these rigorous steps above to willingly step down if there is a tie in d voting process.

I honestly think this process is stressful and too complicated to say the least. 

- in section 3.3.8
> If both co-chairs can’t participate in a meeting, the working group shall appoint one (1) person temporarily to lead the session. If the working group cannot appoint a temporary chair, the board of directors shall appoint a temporary chair. If the board fails to appoint a temporary chair, the meeting shall be adjourned.

Community members invest time and money to attend meetings virtually or physically. I do not think it is best to have a clause that can possibly adjourn a meeting that travels, permission from work, preparation for event must have taken place by community members.

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

More information about the RPD mailing list