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

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello Jordi,

We need to be realistic with our wording. Tell me which Sister organisation
has the wording of yours in their governing document including IETF. I
quote your words below:

"...clearly state that PPMs must not clash in the same dates with those
from “sister” organizations.."

Regards

----
Sent from my mobile
kindly excuse typos

On Sat, 29 Aug 2026, 4:54 am jordi.palet--- via RPD, <rpd at afrinic.net>
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.
>
> 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?
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260830/964c26fb/attachment.html>