Search RPD Archives
[rpd] New Draft Policy Proposal - Amendment of the PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures AFPUB-2026-GEN-001-DRAFT01.
Abdulkarim Oloyede
oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng
Tue Jun 9 21:24:12 UTC 2026
+1 to Seun except that I agree that only people from the region should vote.
I do not think Seun's concerns have been addressed, especially on: below
and I have a few additional concerns
1. Responsibilities in section 3.3.2 feel too granular and policing.
2. Requiring attendance at 4 of the last 6 PPMs (including one in‑person)
may be unrealistic. (I totally agree to this except if the requirement is
personal funding for the one meeting.) Physical attendance does not show
commitment; it’s about opportunities most times.
3. Consensus‑based appointment could introduce subjectivity. I totally
agree with this; it brings not just subjectivity but anarchy and
lawlessness.
4. Registered PPM attendee voting... Does this include online attendees?
Then I think we need to make up our mind on who should vote. My suggestion
is members only should vote.
5. I totally disagree with having a recall committee and having recall
committee decisions being final. This is subject to manipulation and abuse,
and the chair is entirely at the mercy of few individuals called the recall
committee. This is because the recall committee doesn’t appoint chairs,
neither do 10 members appoint chairs. To remove chairs must be subjected to
the same process as electing a chair. There must be a general vote with
majority agreeing to recall the chair.
*AK.*
*Prof Abdulkarim Oloyede*
*Professor of Wireless Telecommunications *
*University of Ilorin. *
On Tue, Jun 9, 2026, 9:34 PM Gregoire EHOUMI via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
wrote:
> Dear PDWG,
>
> This digest summarises the key points raised by community members (Ben,
> Seun, and Sami) regarding this policy proposal, along with the authors’
> clarifications and responses.
> It is organised into four themes for easier reading.
>
> *1. Corrections & Clarifications*
> *Mailing list freeze clarification:*
>
> - Comment (Ben): The RPD list was not frozen; only community‑discuss
> was moderated.
> - *Response: *Acknowledged. The text will be corrected in Draft 2. It
> was meant to say “ Inactive Resource Policy Discussion mailing list”
>
>
> *2. Participation, Representation & Elections*
> *Nomination support requirements:*
>
> - Comment (Seun): No need for supporters to be both AFRINIC members
> and community members.
> - *Response:* The intent is to ensure support from at least one
> contact of the membership. Participants in the PDP and the WG activities
> are generally classified in 2 categories: “Registered contact of AFRINIC
> member” and “ Non-registered contact of AFRINIC member”
>
>
> *Who can vote in NRO NC elections:*
>
> - Comment (Seun): No reason to restrict voting to people in the region.
> - *Response:* This follows existing AFRINIC rules. For NRO NC, only
> participants from the region(excluding staff) vote.
>
>
> *3. Co‑Chair Roles, Eligibility & Processes*
> *Level of detail in co‑chair responsibilities:*
>
> - Comment (Seun): Responsibilities in section 3.3.2 feel too granular
> and policing.
> - *Response: *The detail is intentional, based on RFC 2418 and other
> RIRs practices, to avoid ambiguity. The WG should be predictable.
>
>
> *Eligibility criteria — meeting attendance:*
>
> - Comment (Seun): Requiring attendance at 4 of the last 6 PPMs
> (including one in‑person) may be unrealistic.
> - *Response:* at the old rhythm of 2 PPMs a year, this requirement
> means attending 4 of the 6 meetings held the last 3 years with at least
> one in-person. With Attendance A=4 and Meetings M= 6, what would you
> suggest for A and M?
>
>
> *Appointment by consensus:*
>
> - Comment (Seun): Consensus‑based appointment could introduce
> subjectivity.
> - *Response:* This WG makes decisions by consensus with appeal
> mechanisms in place. Appointing co-chairs via the same mechanisms should
> not be a problem. With the requirements stated at section 3.3.3, it should
> not be difficult to reach consensus on co-chairs candidates. While this may
> not be perfect, it is used worldwide by various WGs. “Community” votes
> rather bring more subjectivity.
>
>
> *Code of Conduct reference:*
>
> - Comment (Seun): Simply refer to AFRINIC’s CoC.
> - *Response:* By referring to “applicable CoC” the proposal avoids
> attaching to a particular CoC. Today we are using the “AFRINIC Community
> CoC” elaborated by the board ( https://afrinic.net/code ), this may
> change in the future. We saw some recent CoC discussions on the list.
>
>
> *4. Governance Structure & Proposal Scope*
> *Necessity of the Number Council:*
>
> - Comment (Seun): The Appeal Committee could perform the same role;
> RNC may be unnecessary.
> - *Response: *The RNC’s roles encompass calling PPM and appointing
> interim co-chairs. So making the AC perform RNC’s role may not be
> appropriate.
>
>
> *Splitting the proposal into smaller documents:*
>
> - Comment (Sami): Consider withdrawing and splitting into multiple
> focused proposals.
> - *Response:* The components are interdependent; splitting them would
> create incoherent intermediate states and procedural gaps.
>
>
> *Board ratification language:*
>
> - Comment (Seun): “Shall” implies the Board must ratify; the Board
> should be able to decline with reasons.
> - *Response:* The text as written “If a policy proposal approved by
> the PDWG fails to be ratified by the board (inability or refusal by the
> board without reasons for 60 days), a petition for ratification can be
> initiated by a member of the PDWG.” it is meant to cover the two scenarios
> below:
>
> 1. The Board is unable to act for 60 days (No quorum, No functioning
> Board, Legal or operational paralysis, etc.)
> 2. The Board refuses to ratify without giving reasons for 60 days (the
> Board says “no” but gives no justification, or The Board simply does
> nothing and provides no explanation.)
> Any suggestions to improve the text if it is not clear enough ?
>
>
> The authors thank the community for constructive feedback.
>
> Regards,
>
> Grégoire
>
>
>
> On May 27, 2026, at 2:45 PM, Sami Salih <sami.salih at outlook.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> As a former PDWG Co-chair, I generally support the intent behind
> strengthening the autonomy and operational continuity of the PDWG. The
> policy development process ultimately belongs to the African Internet
> community and should remain resilient regardless of operational or
> governance challenges affecting AFRINIC as an organisation.
>
> At the same time, I believe it is important to recognize that this
> proposal introduces substantial structural, operational, procedural, and
> governance changes to the PDP framework. In many respects, this is a major
> and transformative proposal rather than a routine procedural update.
>
> From my experience with the PDP, the community process tends to work best
> when addressing clearly scoped issues through focused and
> easy-to-understand proposals. In contrast, this proposal attempts to
> address many different governance, electoral, operational, disciplinary,
> and procedural matters simultaneously, which makes it difficult for the
> community to fully analyse, discuss, and build meaningful consensus around
> all aspects at once.
>
> IMHO, many of the ideas and intended improvements presented in this
> proposal are constructive and deserve serious consideration. I also fully
> acknowledge and respect the extensive experience, effort, and strategic
> thinking of the authors in developing such a comprehensive framework
> proposal.
>
> However, considering the breadth of the changes and the number of distinct
> governance and operational matters being introduced simultaneously, my
> respectful recommendation would be to consider withdrawing the current
> proposal and restructuring this work into multiple smaller and more focused
> proposals. I believe this would make it significantly easier for the
> community to understand, analyse, discuss, and build meaningful consensus
> around each individual topic independently, while improving overall
> community engagement and participation in the process.
>
> With Regards,
> Sami Sali.
>
>
> Sami Salih
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 25, 2026 8:43:56 PM
> *To:* dacostadarwin at gmail.com <dacostadarwin at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* rpd at afrinic.net <rpd at afrinic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] New Draft Policy Proposal - Amendment of the PDP
> Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures AFPUB-2026-GEN-001-DRAFT01.
>
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for sharing this proposal. My initial comments after a brief review
> are the following:
>
> - A typical community member could also be an AFRINIC member. There is no
> reason to mandate that nomination supporters for the NRO NC must be both
> community members and AFRINIC members. Requiring one or 2 supporters from
> the service region should be sufficient.
>
> - The rpd is open to anyone that wishes to participate irrespective of
> origin, region or residence. It sure makes sense to restrict election
> participation to those with a historical record of involvement, either
> online or in-person to avoid historical experience of DDOS on election
> day. However, there is no reason to restrict the selectorate/electorate to
> those in the region alone.
>
> - I do not see the necessity of a Number Committee; it seems to create yet
> another layer. The Appeal committee which also serves as the recall
> committee can perform any intended role of the RNC. Its composition could
> be the 3 NRO NC members from the region, a past co-chair, and a past appeal
> committee chair in a non-voting capacity. In situations where both
> Co-Chairs are no more, the Chair of the Appeal committee can temporarily
> take over until rpd appoints a new co-chair
>
> - As a former co-chair of PDWG, i find the proposed responsibilities of
> the Co-chairs as described in section 3.3.2 to be overly granular and
> quite policing-like for lack of a better word.
>
> - I believe the proposed 3.3.7 should refer to AFRINIC CoC and that should
> be sufficient. The proposed penalties for violations look good, though they
> are a bit too wordy to me and the process leading to that is quite
> descriptive. We really need to give the co-chairs the privilege of managing
> events as they deem applicable
>
> - The idea that a co-chair eligibility should be tied to attending
> in-person meetings during a specific period isn't realistic given our
> region's unique challenges. I understand it may be an effort to put a face
> to the name but restricting eligibility to the last 2 years (which is
> basically last 4 PPM) isn't realistic.
>
> - 3.3.3.3.3 suggests co-chairs will be appointed by consensus, that is an
> interesting point that i would definitely not support. This can lead to
> unnecessary subjectivity.
>
> - I like the expectation of participation from Co-Chair hence 3.3.4
> appeals to me as written.
>
> - Use of shall in 3.3.11 suggests that ratification is the only option for
> the Board. There should be an option for the Board to provide reasons for
> not ratifying and that should not be triggered by a petition.
>
> I may have more comments in future, but that is all from me for now.
>
> Regards
>
> On Mon, 25 May 2026 at 10:20, dacostadarwin at gmail.com <
> dacostadarwin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear PDWG,
>
> We have received a new draft policy proposal - Amendment of the PDP
> Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures AFPUB-2026-GEN-001-DRAFT01
> from authors Grégoire EHOUMI, Noah Maina and Adeola A. P. AINA.
>
> The proposal contents are published at:
> https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/afpub-2026-gen-001-draft01
>
> We encourage you to take some time to go through the proposal contents
> and provide feedback as follows :
>
> a) Do you support or oppose the proposal?
>
> b) If you oppose the proposal, state your reasons.
>
> c) Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>
> d) What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
>
> Regards,
> Vincent Ngundi & Darwin Da Costa
> AFRINIC PDWG Co-Chairs
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji, *
>
> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
--
Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin
<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal
<http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal
<https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> HelpDesk
<http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/more-resources/e-notices/6845-how-to-resolve-email-portal-login-problems-for-staff-and-students>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260609/7c763316/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list