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

[Mphoentle Mokheseng]

Hi Jordi and colleagues,

I agree that these provisions belong in the RPD discussion. However, removing Article 11.4 would not, by itself, resolve a different concern: whether ordinary fee-setting and administrative powers could be used to introduce resource conditions without changing the policy text.
There is a specific drafting change in Article 4.2(b) that deserves attention.

AFRINIC’s published 2020 Bylaws require the Board to consult both Members and the community before finalising fee changes. In the wording you have quoted, that requirement names only Members. The community reappears in Article 4.2(c), but as a recipient of notice after the decision. Informing the community of a decision is not equivalent to allowing it to influence that decision.

Restoring those words would be necessary, but the underlying issue goes beyond consultation.
Consider a hypothetical additional charge that an applicant can avoid only by adopting a particular network configuration or meeting a protocol-deployment target. The published allocation criteria might remain unchanged, yet the financial conditions would introduce a new incentive or penalty tied to operator behaviour. That is a different purpose from recovering the cost of registry services.

The same distinction applies to Article 15.3(a). Its requirement that allocation guidelines remain aligned with the PDP is important, but I would make the boundary between implementation and policymaking explicit rather than leave it to interpretation.

A guideline explaining how to submit evidence required by an existing policy is implementation. A guideline requiring an additional operational commitment before an otherwise eligible application can proceed is a new substantive condition. Calling both “guidelines” should not give them the same approval route.
This is also why I would qualify the proposed requirement for fees to be proportional to address holdings. I share the concern about distorted incentives, but proportionality to address count does not, by itself, establish that the underlying charges are justified. A perfectly proportional fee can still fund activities unrelated to the service for which payment is compulsory. I would instead require a published registry-service cost basis, objective charging categories and an explanation of how costs are distributed. That would connect compulsory payment to the function being provided, rather than make it an instrument for directing operators’ choices.

Ordinary cost recovery can remain a corporate responsibility. A new condition on resource eligibility should not become a financial or administrative matter simply because it is presented as a charge or procedure.
I would therefore suggest an express safeguard alongside the revision of Article 15.3(a), along these lines:
“The Board shall oversee the implementation of number-resource policies adopted through the PDP. Administrative guidelines and fee conditions shall not introduce or vary substantive resource-eligibility or usage requirements outside that process. Mandatory registry-service charges shall have a published cost justification and shall not be used to compel operational choices unrelated to those services. This provision does not displace requirements imposed by applicable law.”
For each proposed guideline or conditional charge, AFRINIC should identify the existing policy or legal requirement it implements and disclose whether it changes an applicant’s substantive obligations. That would make the distinction testable before implementation, rather than leave the community to discover a
new condition when an application is rejected.

My concern is therefore not only who can formally adopt policy. It is whether the Constitution prevents the same result from being achieved through another category of decision. The safeguard should follow what a measure does, not merely what it is called.

Kind regards,
Mphoentle
Disclaimer This email and the information contained herein are Advtech Ltd confidential and are protected by law. Please navigate to our website for more information https://www.groupadvtech.com. Use of this information or this email by any person for any purposes other than that for which it is intended is prohibited and may result in civil and/or criminal liability. This email is not to be shared with any 3rd parties not included within this email, without the written consent of its Author. If you have received this message in error, please notify Advtech immediately, telephone number +27 11 676 8000. Advtech leads the private sector in the fields of education and resourcing, contributing meaningfully towards the sustainable development of human capacity in South Africa.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260911/3604ecff/attachment-0001.html>