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
Fri Jun 19 22:56:32 UTC 2026
Hi Arnaud,
These are two diffrent things. Its comparing Apples with oranges. When we
know they are both fruits.
Cheers
Abdulkarim.
On Sun, Jun 14, 2026, 4:37 PM Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>
>> *>
>>
>>
--
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/20260619/2ae869ff/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list