[rpd] New draft policy proposal PPM Dates AFPUB-2026-GEN-003-DRAFT01

[Andrew Alston]

Jordi,

I'd like to point out that even looking at the IETF Clash list - AfriNIC is
not even on the IETF must not clash list.

According to that list, IETF meetings MUST NOT clash with the following:


   - APNIC
   - APRICOT
   - ARIN
   - 3GPP *
   - ICANN *
   - IEEE 802 *
   - ITU-T (selected meetings)*
   - LACNIC
   - NANOG
   - OMA *
   - RIPE
   - W3C *

There is a separate list of events they prefer not to clash with but where
the conflict matters less—and AfriNIC is only on that second list. See
https://www.ietf.org/meeting/planning/clash-list/

Until such time as other organisations have to do not clash lists - and are
willing to publish those - and there is reciprocity, I remain opposed to
this policy.

Andrew


On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 11:05 AM jordi.palet--- via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Responding to several emails on this with a single response.
>
> 1) There is no such policy in other RIRs, becuase it was not needed, as
> didn’t happened such clash. Policy proposals must be both proactive and
> reactive, which means that sometimes we can see a problem “before” it
> happens and try to avoid it with a policy proposal. Other times, we react
> to what already happened, like this one. This doesn’t mean at all, that any
> RIR is 1st or 2nd or 3rd class. Otherwise, as the policies in the RIRs have
> differences, we could always state that. No sense, same as the no sense
> that if the board decides to repeat the clash in the coming years the
> community have nothing to do against that? For sure that no other RIR will
> do that, and if they do, the community will reach with similar policy
> proposals.
>
> 2) If you read carefully the proposal, I’ve, on purpose, used “should” and
> not “must” and also for other events “whenever possible”. So this perfectly
> allows “emergency” situations.
>
> 3) Repeating again, if “other events” are co-located, this is in the
> proposal “whenever possible”, so it doesn’t disallow it. My view is that
> the result usually is that the PPM will get less attention that those
> collocated event if they clash (previous experience in another RIR show
> it). This is not the same as AIS, as it is a “joint” event, with shared
> agenda, I don’t see it as a clash - we have this in other RIRs and again,
> is not a problem, because it is a shared agenda.
>
> 4) Of course, if you create clash with other events where few people from
> Africa take part in, will actually avoid those people to even consider
> taking part in those!
>
> 5) Despite what I’ve said in 2 above, my understanding is that the current
> PDP and bylaws doesn’t allow “emergency” PPMs. The bylaws call for “the
> board” will do what they wish, and enforce their actions even if the
> community doesn’t reach consensus on that. Which, again, in my opinion (I
> said that many times already) is a terrible mistake, against bottom-up
> process, and should be corrected, as otherwise, Afrinic will be against the
> new ICP-2, but this is a topic for another discussion.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>
> @jordipalet
>
> El 16 sept 2026, a las 8:30, Ben Roberts - AfriNIC via RPD <
> rpd at afrinic.net> escribió:
>
> +1 Andrew. The nature of these PPM events is that it is necessary to hold
> them alongside other African events in order to make it worth the trip for
> what is actually a short meeting. This year we held one PPM alongside the
> AIS (as has been traditional) and now experimenting with co-locating it
> alongside AfricaCom which is the biggest African industry event of the
> year. I would rather we see how the experiment works before introducing
> policies to tie us in knots by settling to not clash with global meetings
> that very few people from Africa take part in.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 16 Sep 2026, at 08:58, Andrew Alston <aa at alstonnetworks.net> wrote:
>
> 
> Hi RPD / RPD Chairs,
>
> I oppose this policy.   While I believe that AfriNIC should endeavor to
> ensure that meetings do not clash, the reality is that this is sometimes
> unavoidable.  Furthermore, I stand to be corrected, but I am unsure if
> other organisations have such a policy.  Embedding this in our policy
> manual effectively relegates AfriNIC to second-class status compared to
> other global organisations that do not have similar policies prohibiting
> scheduling conflicts with AfriNIC.
>
> Furthermore, there may be times when an emergency policy meeting needs to
> be called to address an urgent issue, and this clause could pose a serious
> problem in that scenario.
>
> To repeat my stance above, I do not doubt the policy's intent, and while
> clashes should obviously be avoided, but I do not believe that this should
> be made a rule that restricts the PDP to the scheduling whims of other
> organisations.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 6:49 PM Hytham El-Nakhal <hytham at tra.gov.eg>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear PDWG,
>>
>>
>> We have received a new draft policy proposal named PPM Dates with ID
>> AFPUB-2026-GEN-003-DRAFT01 from author Jordi Palet.
>>
>>
>> The proposal contents are published at: <
>> https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/afpub-2026-gen-001-draft01>
>>
>> https://www.afrinic.net/afpub-2026-gen-003-draft01
>>
>>
>> We encourage you to take some time to go through the proposal contents
>> and provide feedback as follows: -
>>
>> ?
>>
>> a) Do you support or oppose the proposal?
>>
>>
>> b) If you oppose the proposal, state your reasons.
>>
>>
>> c) Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
>>
>>
>> d) What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
>>
>>
>> Kindly, as a way for better following up and archiving, keep the name and
>> proposal ID in the subject line of your posts.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Haitham el Nakhal & Darwin Da Costa
>>
>> AFRINIC PDWG Co-Chairs
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> 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/20260916/9ee019fa/attachment-0001.html>