Search RPD Archives
[rpd] New Draft Policy Proposal - Amendment of the PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures AFPUB-2026-GEN-001-DRAFT01.
Arnaud AMELINA
amelnaud at gmail.com
Sun Jun 14 15:37:41 UTC 2026
Hi PDW members, Hi AK,
Are you suggesting that decisions made by consensus by the WG are lawless?
Regards
> >+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 <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>>
> 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 <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 <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>> 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 <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>>
> *>* *Sent:* Monday, May 25, 2026 8:43:56 PM
> *>* *To:* dacostadarwin at gmail.com <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd> <dacostadarwin at gmail.com <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>>
> *>* *Cc:* rpd at afrinic.net <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd> <rpd at afrinic.net <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>>
> *>* *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 <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd> <
> *>* dacostadarwin at gmail.com <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>> 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 <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>
> *>* https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <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>
> *>* https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> *>>>* _______________________________________________
> *>* RPD mailing list
> *>* RPD at afrinic.net <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> *>* https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> *>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260614/7c658538/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list