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

[rpd] Summary of Proposal Update of PDP - AFPUB-2021-GEN-002-DRAFT02

PDWG Chair vincent at
Wed Dec 8 15:23:35 UTC 2021


*Dear PDWG, *


The  summary of the elements that led to the PDWG Chairs decision for 
the policy  proposal Update of PDP - Policy Proposal 
AFPUB-2021-GEN-002-DRAFT02 that was discussed during the AFRINIC-34 
Public Policy Meeting is as follows :-


    Pending concerns relating to section 3.4.2 - “The reduction of the
    announcement of the meeting agenda on the RPD list from two weeks to
    one week makes no sense because it does not give the RPD enough time
    for discussion and less time to get a better grasp of the meeting's
    agenda. In the current version, it states that 'no change can be
    made to the draft policy within one week of the meeting' but good
    enough, there's two weeks. The proposed version estate the same
    thing but it only gives a one-week provision”


    Pending concern to section 3.4.5. ​”There is no necessity on the
    additional functions of the board of directors. Because it would be
    an additional work to both the community and the board plus giving
    the board the opportunity to make temporary policy changes which
    would last until the next PPM might create an issue from it was
    created to the next PPM"


    Pending concern. DPP mentions Chairs determine consensus -- it is
    not what it is, the chair has the mandate to make sure that this
    working group has reached consensus. Again, we should make sure that
    when we write this, we follow the right procedure or it could be


    Pending concern - Problem statement has a series of questions. you
    want to solve a problem, you have to state that you have this
    problem, this evidence, and this is how to solve the problem. The
    author can be helped to better write problem statements.


    Pending concern.this way of imposing staff analysis any time we
    change anything in the proposal is useless. Staff are being turned 
    into one of the major players in the policy discussions. He
    suggested that now that we have extended the time for the policy to
    be discussed for eight weeks instead of four, why can't we say that
    we have four weeks to have a discussion, no need for staff
    assessment, and then after eight weeks we decided that the policy
    has matured, we go for another four weeks of review, and then after
    this period we request staff analysis. I think in this community we
    have lawyers, legal, we should not be going to staff all the time.
    We should not be asking for staff analysis at any time. The document
    must reach a certain level before we request staff analysis, we are
    the working group.

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