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

Wed Sep 16 11:19:00 UTC 2026

Hi Seun,

The contact from board to IETF is what the IETF page suggests. I’m not saying I agree with IETF doing right with that discriminatory classification, on the contrary.

However that’s irrelevant:

*** If organization A always plan ahead 6 years of meeting dates and organization B often plan ahead just a few months or 1-2 years what the logic say? Obviously is up to organization B to avoid the clash, because there is no way organization A can avoid it when B has not planed already.

Regards,
Jordi

@jordipalet

> El 16 sept 2026, a las 12:53, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> escribió:
> 
> Hi Jordi,
> 
> Just a comment, please see inline below:
> ----
> Sent from my mobile
> kindly excuse typos
> 
> On Wed, 16 Sept 2026, 3:33 am jordi.palet--- via RPD, <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:
>> .
>> 
>> Obviously this doesn’t excuse the clear discrimination being done by IETF between 1 RIR vs the other 4.
>> 
>> Also note that it is up to AFRINIC staff (or board) to contact IETF to change that.
> 
> 
> SO: It should be up to IETF to contact AFRINIC Board when there is clash as well, there is no reason to hardcode a commitment in AFRINIC working document just because of an IETF date clash incidence. If it were other RIR maybe I would have some sympathy for that and even that should not justify hardcoding date requirements as AFRINIC always ensure to avoid date clashes as much as possible.
> 
>> I will do my best anyway to ensure that the list is the web page is not discriminating AFRINIC/AFNOG. I urge the staff and board, and other RPD members to complain to the IETF about that, probably reply to all to my previous email so it get copied to meeting-planning at ietf.org <mailto:meeting-planning at ietf.org>.
> 
> 
> SO: You don't have to do the talking anymore Jordi it is not necessary. Things like these does not have to be lobbied for to be done.
> 
> I join others in opposing this policy. Maybe if you get similar policy proposed at other RIR and it passes we can reconsider.
> 
>  Regards 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> 
>> @jordipalet
>> 
>>> El 16 sept 2026, a las 10:15, Andrew Alston <aa at alstonnetworks.net <mailto:aa at alstonnetworks.net>> escribió:
>>> 
>>> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>>>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> RPD mailing list
>>>>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> RPD mailing list
>>>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto: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 <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 <mailto: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 <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 <mailto: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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260916/24ed8e09/attachment-0001.html>