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)

Gaby Giner gabyginernetwork at
Tue Nov 16 08:20:38 UTC 2021

I agree with Paul here that the CEO as an arbiter of what is "acceptable"
is a slippery slide to abuse and is untenable. Given what we have seen of
the current violation/warning put on a member of the community by the CEO,
it is questionable to put the decision of what is acceptable or not with
the CEO. The CEO shouldn't be involved in the group discussions, more so
unfairly slapping violations on violations on members that are speaking
factually. It's absurd if you think about it.

Gaby x

On Tue, 16 Nov 2021 at 15:43, Paul Hjul <hjul.paul at> wrote:

> 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
> crafted:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list