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

[rpd] Summary of proposal PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures -AFPUB-2020-GEN-002-DRAFT04

PDWG Chair vincent at
Wed Dec 8 15:19:05 UTC 2021


*Dear PDWG,*


The  summary of the elements that led to the PDWG Chairs decision for 
the proposal PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures 
-AFPUB-2020-GEN-002-DRAFT04 that was discussed during the AFRINIC-34 
Public Policy Meeting is as follows :-


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

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.


    Pending concern. In section 3.3.3, there is a voting process that
    doesn’t involve the entire WG stipulated. I Think it is awkward at
    least that a voting process is proposed but the entire community is
    not allowed to exercise their franchise as community members.

I am opposed to limiting voting to past co-chairs. The community is 
perfectly capable of voting and this proposal essentially 
disenfranchises individuals in favor of an electoral college.


    Pending concern. 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


    Pending concern. In 3.3.3, since the co-chair selection process is
    to take place in a 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 a lack of consensus, there is no
    stated guideline as to who chairs that current ongoing PPM.


    Pending concern. 3.3.9 Lack of consensus definition. Many folks
    don't read RFCs - there is no clear view of if the consensus is
    determined also in the mailing list discussion. Lack of last-call
    definition Lack of clear timings for  the process.

The decision of PDWG Co-chairs is that no rough consensus has been 
reached due to the number of valid concerns not yet addressed during the 
online session and from the mailing list. The draft policy proposal, 
therefore, goes back to the RPD mailing list for further discussion.


Vincent Ngundi & Darwin Da Costa


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

More information about the RPD mailing list