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

[rpd] A question for the PDWG

Dewole Ajao dewole at
Tue May 24 15:26:21 UTC 2022

Thanks for contributing feedback, Jordi. 

In referring to the ICP-2 which is indeed criteria for establishment of an RIR, you mention "community". 
Portions of the same document clarifies "Community" to mean LIR/ISP Community. In the absence of any other (re)definition of community in the same document, it is would appear that wherever the document says community, it means network operators that can be affected by the RIR's operations/policies. 

Can you please clarify what community you are referring to when you talk of "community sovereignty" being encroached on? Do you mean network operators that are yet to become resource members? 


From: "jordi palet" <jordi.palet at> 
To: "dewole" <dewole at>, "rpd" <rpd at> 
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 2:55:35 PM 
Subject: Re: [rpd] A question for the PDWG 

Hi Dewole, 

And as I said many times, and it match your analysis, the bylaws are VERY BROKEN. It can be easily said that 11.3 and 15.3 of bylaws are contradictory, but this is not the only broken point. 

The bylaws are encroaching the community sovereignty in many aspects, which means that the RIR is not complying with the ICP-2. 

Some of those points can be addressed by the PDP by authorizing those “mistakes” of the bylaws, however, some aspects must be corrected in the bylaws. 

There is no RIR bylaws doing anything like that. 

If board and membership keeps ignoring that, instead of solving it, then AFRINIC is insisting in endangering the organization. 

What you’re proposing will only increatse to breach of ICP-2. The PDP is in the hands of the community, and that means we can’t accept that only members do certain things, including selecting chairs. 




El 24/5/22, 15:40, "Dewole Ajao via RPD" < [ mailto:rpd at | rpd at ] > escribió: 

Just trying to take a look at the "letter of the law" since we have an interesting proposal to sue the AFRINIC board of directors regarding the process of getting our co-chairs. 

I can't find any mention of the "Policy Development Working Group" in the bylaws. Following a reference to the "Policy Development Process" however, one is taken to the Consolidated Policy Manual [ | ] of which the PDP and PDWG are subsets. 

We encounter the PDWG in Section 3.3 of the Consolidated Policy Manual (CPM) and indeed it states that 

- *Anyone may participate...* 

- *Two chairs are *chosen* 

Section 3.4 also states that 

- *Anyone may submit a proposal* 

Going by this, we can infer that the group (which is made up of any interested persons) will select its co-chairs using any mechanism that is based on openness, fairness and transparency - See sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2, and 3.2.3. I do not see any requirement for election; not even for a show of hands. 

Moving on to Section 15 of the bylaws (Powers of Directors) for a moment, it appears to me that the directors have the duty to *determine the guidelines for the allocation of address space to members...*. 

15.3) Without prejudice to the generality of Articles 15.1 and 15.2 above, the Directors shall be entitled to: 

i. determine the guidelines for the allocation of address space to members in line with the member-driven Policy Development Process; 

>From the above and simple English language, one could infer (without prejudice to the rights of any interested person to participate) , that only *members* have the duty to "drive the Policy Development Process". 

Note: members in the context of the bylaws refers to Resource members, Registered members, and Associate members. 

One could then translate this to mean that 

1. anyone can propose draft policies with the goal of making them policies and have them debated/improved/discarded/accepted 

2. anyone can contribute to policy proposals that have been received by the group 

3. since anyone can propose/contribute text, it is the responsibility of resource members to ensure that the PDP produces fair policies via a process that is open and transparent 

4. since the company must abide by the laws of the land, and operate in line with the objects of the company, it is the responsibility of the Directors to ratify the resulting member-driven policies for implementation. 

So that it does not remain a matter that is open to translation as I have done above, is anyone willing to contribute very simple policy text that puts the process of selecting PDWG leadership in the hands of resource members? 

Maybe that could put an end to room-stacking and other PDP hijacking fears and get us back to the business of serious policy development? 

Putting on my flame-retardant suit, 


_______________________________________________ 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. 

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

More information about the RPD mailing list