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

[Qhawe Ngubane]

Good morning colleagues,

I've spent the weekend going over the various points/suggestions and
propositions put forward and it's inspiring how much deliberate engagement
there is on this topic and many others.

I'd like to take this opportunity to ventilate a few points, specifically
in regards to propositions made by Mike and Benson:

I appreciate the distinction between the BRC’s formal submission process
and discussion on this list. There is no suggestion that RPD correspondence
replaces a consultation submission. However, the nomination issue raised by
Mike Burns and Benson deserves a substantive answer alongside the
clarification about where comments must be lodged.

I would take their concern one step further: changing who appoints the
Nomination Committee is not sufficient if the committee still decides which
otherwise eligible alternatives members may vote for.

Even an independently appointed committee could restrict electoral choice
through its assessment of candidates. Independence from the Board and
respect for members’ electoral authority are separate requirements.

The draft makes useful improvements. Article 9.2 expressly protects the
committee’s nomination and election functions from Board or CEO direction,
while Article 9.6 prohibits assessment criteria beyond those provided in
the Constitution. I support those safeguards.

Nevertheless, Articles 9.3(b)(iv)–(v) provide for competency assessments
and interviews, and Article 9.4(c) connects candidate assessment to the
composition of an effective and balanced Board. These provisions need a
clearer distinction between verifying eligibility and selecting the
committee’s preferred candidates.

A closed list of assessment criteria does not, by itself, settle that
distinction. The Constitution should establish whether a criterion is a
minimum requirement that a candidate must satisfy or information that helps
members choose between eligible candidates. Those are different functions.

Consider two candidates who both meet the applicable minimum requirements.
One supports AFRINIC’s existing institutional direction; the other proposes
a narrower mandate and substantial governance reform. The committee should
not be able to exclude the second merely because it considers the first a
better fit for the existing Board.

Likewise, once both candidates satisfy the required standard, one
candidate’s greater experience should not automatically make the other
ineligible. A comparative advantage is a reason voters may prefer someone,
not necessarily a reason to remove their opponent from the ballot.

The accountability principle I would apply is that those administering an
institution should not displace the choices of those to whom they are
accountable. The concern is structural, rather than an allegation about the
intentions of any particular committee or director.

I would therefore propose wording along these lines, with corresponding
changes to the assessment provisions:

“Every duly nominated candidate who satisfies the Constitution’s expressly
defined minimum eligibility requirements and is not disqualified under
applicable law shall be included on the ballot. Comparative assessments of
qualifications, experience or contribution to Board composition may inform
voters but shall not, by themselves, exclude an otherwise eligible
candidate. Support for or opposition to existing policies, office-holders
or lawful constitutional reforms shall not constitute a ground for
exclusion.”

This would preserve legitimate qualification checks without allowing them
to become a preliminary election conducted by the committee. Any minimum
competency requirements should be clearly distinguished from desirable
attributes, rather than leaving the distinction to be determined during
candidate assessment.

There is also a concrete connection to the PDP discussion: Article 11.3
places the Board within the policy framework through its ratification role.
Rules affecting who can contest Board seats therefore matter to the
community’s relationship with that framework, even though constitutional
amendments follow a different approval process.

Ultimately, my position is to support eligibility verification, but oppose
discretionary pre-selection among candidates who meet the required
standard. Members should be able to elect a different institutional
direction, not choose between candidates a committee considers preferable.

Thank you for your attention and I hope the above recommendations are
wholly welcome and considered.

Kind Regards
Simphiwe Ngubane
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260914/955d3797/attachment.html>