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)

Daniel Yakmut yakmutd at
Fri Nov 19 08:25:31 UTC 2021

Significantly, I agree with Jordi.

On Nov 16, 2021 8:43 AM, "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:
>>> policy/proposals/2020-gen-002-d4 <
>>> 2020-gen-002-d4>
>> 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