[rpd] bylaws consultation aspects that impact the PDP/community

[Benson Muite]

Hi Jordi,

Thanks for your efforts to improve the transparency of this process by making your feedback public.  

On Sat, Aug 29, 2026, at 12:53 PM, jordi.palet--- via RPD wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> For a third time, I’ve just contributed to the bylaw consultation, and 
> I think some issues need to be also discussed in the RPD as they 
> clearly impact the community, not just the members.
>
> I strongly suggest the community also provide inputs, if they have not 
> already done it (https://vox.afrinic.net/868233).
>
> I’ve copied actual proposal for those articles that impact the PDP, and 
> then my suggestions as [Jordi].
>
> 4.2   Review of fees:
> (a)   The fees mentioned in Article 4.1 above shall be subject to 
> review from time to time by the Board.
> (b)   Before finalising any changes in fees, the Board shall consult 
> the Members and allow at least 60 days for comments
> (c)   After the Board finalises any changes in fees, the new fees shall 
> take effect only from the commencement of the next financial year, 
> provided that Members, as appropriate, and the community have been 
> given not less than sixty (60) days' prior notice of the new fees.
>
> [Jordi] There should be something like a 4.2 (d) that clearly state 
> that fees must be proportional to the number of addresses. It happened 
> before (I believe is not the case now, but in may happen again in the 
> future) that you pay more "per prefix" (or per address) if you have a 
> /31 than a /32, then again you pay less if you have a /29 (just 
> examples). This means that we are encouraging members to get a longer 
> prefix (smaller block) instead of what they really need to assign a /48 
> to end-sites, so they end-up assigning /64, which is broken in IPv6.
>
>
> 11.2   The Board shall call a Public Policy Meeting at least once a 
> year as per requirements defined in the Policy Development Process. 
> Public Policy Meeting may be attended by:
> (a)   members (Registered, Resources and Associate);
> (b)   anyone interested in Number Resources Management policy.
>
> 11.3   For the purpose of subsection 11.2 a Public Policy Meeting means 
> a meeting open to the community wherein proposals for policies for a 
> proper and responsible usage and Management of Internet number 
> resources are discussed and agreed within the framework of the Policy 
> Development Process (PDP) defined by the Regional Internet Community 
> and ratified by the Board.
>
> [Jordi] New article between 11.2 and 11.3 or so, to clearly state that 
> PPMs must not clash in the same dates with those from “sister” 
> organizations such as the other RIRs, IETF, ICANN, etc.
>
> 11.4   Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 11.3 above, the Board 
> may adopt such policies regarding the management of internet number 
> resources where it considers that the same is necessary and urgent, 
> having regard to the proper and responsible usage of these resources. 
> [Amended at the 2020 AGMM] 11.4   Notwithstanding the provisions of 
> Article 11.3 above, the Board may adopt such policies regarding the 
> management of internet number resources where it considers that the 
> same is necessary and urgent, having regard to the proper and 
> responsible usage of these resources.
> 11.5   Endorsement of the policy adopted by the Board:
> (a)   Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 
> 11.4 shall be submitted to the community for endorsement at the next 
> public policy meeting.
> (b)   In the event that such a policy submitted by the Board is not 
> endorsed, the said policy shall not be enforced or implemented 
> following its non-endorsement; however, any action taken in terms of 
> the policy prior to such non-endorsement shall remain valid.
>
> [Jordi] 11.4 should not exist. In my opinion, it is against ICP-2 and 
> the successor document. The board can already use the "varying the 
> process” for urgent policy matters, call for an urgent on-line PPM, 
> etc. Also, I don’t think other RIRs have this article neither something 
> similar that goes against the bottom-up-process.
> As a consequence 11.5 also falls down.
> If 11.4 is kept, we must change reword 11.5 (b). There is no sense that 
> a possible BAD action by the board, can't be reversed by the community. 
> What happens if the board decides to alter allocation policies or 
> whatever, benefit some friends and then it can't be recovered? Note 
> that this is not accusation, is only an example of what can go wrong.
>

This certainly goes against a bottom-up process.

> 15.3   Without prejudice to the generality of Articles 15.1 and 15.2 
> above, the Directors shall be entitled to:
> (a)   determine the guidelines for the allocation of address space to 
> members in line with the member driven Policy Development Process;
> (b)   consider broad Internet policy issues in order to ensure that the 
> policies and strategies of the Company fully respond to the changing 
> Internet environment;
>
> [Jordi] I think (a) must be removed or reworded. How come the directors 
> determine something that is done by the PDP?
>

This does need clarification.  Director action can be faster than the PDP process,
so there can be situations where fast action might be needed.  However, this should
be exceptional and should be something that can be reversed/modified by a PDP
process if needed.

> Regards,
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>

Regards,
Benson