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)

PDWG Chair vincent at
Tue Nov 16 17:51:42 UTC 2021

Dear Jordi,

Please see inline.

On 16/11/2021 12:48, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
> Last but not least, 3.4.2 of the **actual** PDP indicates “No change 
> can be made to a draft policy within one week of the meeting”, and 
> this version was submitted, according to the authors email outside of 
> that time frame, so it shall not be considered for this PPM. I’ve no 
> problem on accepting that, however, then, how we can say next time 
> other authors, of another proposal that they missed the deadline? Is 
> that acceptable?

Please note that this policy proposal was submitted within the timelines 
defined in our PDP.

Vincent Ngundi & Darwin Da Costa

> Regards,
> Jordi
> El 16/11/21 8:47, "Paul Hjul" <hjul.paul at> escribió:
>         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
> **********************************************
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list