[rpd] [External] Re: RPD Digest, Vol 224, Issue 6

[Hytham El-Nakhal]

​Dear Fundiswa,


Thanks for your concerns and care.

As you may know, as a member from a few months in the rpd mailing-list, that the rpd mailing list is to propose and discuss the Internet resources policy proposals and you can find more details on https://afrinic.net/policy that will help you in understanding the process.


The Bylwas Review Committee was communicating with members and community for the proper Bylaws updates for three rounds till now, and they included in each consulting communication round a url link to submit your comments on each Article, if you had any.


I will stop arguing this issue here as it's not related to the rpd mailing list. Thank you for your understanding.


Kind Regards,

Haitham el Nakhal

PDWG Co Chairs

________________________________
From: Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <fundiswanadia2 at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 4:49 PM
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: [External] Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 224, Issue 6

Dear Haitham,

Thank you for clarifying. I recognise that formal BRC submissions have closed, but that is distinct from discussing how proposed governance changes could affect the PDP and community participation.

My concern is not to reopen article-by-article drafting. It is to ensure that provisions affecting authority over resource policy remain open to community scrutiny. Their relevance to RPD should depend on their substance, not merely on appearing in the bylaws.

Could you clarify the agreed mailing-list rule supporting this restriction, and distinguish formal BRC submissions from discussion of their implications for the PDP?

Kind regards,
Fundiswa

On Mon, 14 Sept 2026, 14:00 , <rpd-request at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>> wrote:
Send RPD mailing list submissions to
        rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        rpd-request at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>

You can reach the person managing the list at
        rpd-owner at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd-owner at afrinic.net>

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1.  bylaws consultation aspects that impact the PDP/community
      (Qhawe Ngubane)
   2. Re: [External] bylaws consultation aspects that impact the
      PDP/community (Hytham El-Nakhal)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2026 08:45:26 +0200
From: Qhawe Ngubane <qhawengubane at gmail.com<mailto:qhawengubane at gmail.com>>
To: rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: [rpd]  bylaws consultation aspects that impact the
        PDP/community
Message-ID:
        <CAOejeSgQSLnmjJnc0kHU=OgTjP2HVtDeLcUaEPTbPvXobcD+oQ at mail.gmail.com<mailto:OgTjP2HVtDeLcUaEPTbPvXobcD%2BoQ at mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2026 09:20:15 +0000
From: Hytham El-Nakhal <hytham at tra.gov.eg<mailto:hytham at tra.gov.eg>>
To: "rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>" <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [rpd] [External] bylaws consultation aspects that impact
        the PDP/community
Message-ID: <1789377615316.40380 at tra.gov.eg<mailto:1789377615316.40380 at tra.gov.eg>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"

Dear Qhawe, Nonjabulo, Mphoentle and Fundiswa,


Thanks for your emails related to the Bylaws Review process.

Kindly, as you may know, this Resource Policy Development (RPD) mailing-list is not the dedicated mailing-list to discuss the review of Bylaws' Articles.

Thanks for Jordi, for bringing his proposed suggestions regarding the update and potential modification of the Bylaws to the attention of the community prior to the closing of the comment period.

Bylaws Review Committee (BRC) concluded the third round of community consultation on 30 August 2026 at 23:59 UTC.


So, no more discussion for Bylaws Articles review will be accepted on the rpd mailing-list.


Best Regards,

Haitham el Nakhal

PDWG Co-Chair



________________________________
From: Qhawe Ngubane <qhawengubane at gmail.com<mailto:qhawengubane at gmail.com>>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 9:45 AM
To: rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: [External] [rpd] bylaws consultation aspects that impact the PDP/community

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



------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd


------------------------------

End of RPD Digest, Vol 224, Issue 6
***********************************