<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Hello Gregoire,<div><br></div><div>Please find the details inline:</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 at 14:27, Gregoire EHOUMI <<a href="mailto:gregoire.ehoumi@yahoo.fr">gregoire.ehoumi@yahoo.fr</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div>Dear PDWG,</div><div><br></div><div>This digest summarises the key points raised by community members (Ben, Seun, and Sami) regarding this policy proposal, along with the authors’ clarifications and responses.</div><div>It is organised into four themes for easier reading.</div><div><br></div><div><b>1. Corrections & Clarifications</b></div><div><i>Mailing list freeze clarification:</i></div><div><ul><li>Comment (Ben): The RPD list was not frozen; only community‑discuss was moderated.</li><li><b>Response: </b>Acknowledged. The text will be corrected in Draft 2. It was meant to say “ Inactive Resource Policy Discussion mailing list”</li></ul></div><div><br></div><div><b>2. Participation, Representation & Elections</b></div><div><i>Nomination support requirements:</i></div><div><ul><li>Comment (Seun): No need for supporters to be both AFRINIC members and community members.</li><li><b>Response:</b> The intent is to ensure support from at least one contact of the membership. Participants in the PDP and the WG activities are generally classified in 2 categories: “Registered contact of AFRINIC member” and “ Non-registered contact of AFRINIC member”</li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div>SO: Current participants of RPD do not need to be a “Registered contact of AFRINIC member” OR “ Non-registered contact of AFRINIC member”, the PDWG is and should be open to any person interested in number policy development including non AFRINIC members. Note that there is a subtle difference between non-registered contact of AFRINIC member and a non-AFRINIC member. It should be okay to require support from either an AFRINIC member OR a community member, but the current text mandates both.To illustrate a nomination supported by 2 community members should pass just as a nomination supported by 2 afrinic member, likewise 1 afrinic member and 1 community member.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><br></div><div><i>Who can vote in NRO NC elections:</i></div><div><ul><li>Comment (Seun): No reason to restrict voting to people in the region.</li><li><b>Response:</b> This follows existing AFRINIC rules. For NRO NC, only participants from the region(excluding staff) vote.</li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div><br>SO: My rationale is based on the premise that the rpd is open to all; hence, PDWG co-chair voters should not be restricted to in-region. By extension, NRO NC voters should be similar. Nevertheless considering past experiences, I agree there is merit in restricting voting to in-region but that discriminates on participation as voting is a form of participation as well.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><br></div><div><b>3. Co‑Chair Roles, Eligibility & Processes</b></div><div><i>Level of detail in co‑chair responsibilities:</i></div><div><ul><li>Comment (Seun): Responsibilities in section 3.3.2 feel too granular and policing.</li><li><b>Response: </b>The detail is intentional, based on RFC 2418 and other RIRs practices, to avoid ambiguity. The WG should be predictable. </li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>SO: I do not know of an RIR process that is as granular in the responsibility of co-chairs as stated in 3.3.2. Section 6.1 of RFC 2418 that describes the role of a working group chair isn't as granular either.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><br></div><div><i>Eligibility criteria — meeting attendance:</i></div><div><ul><li>Comment (Seun): Requiring attendance at 4 of the last 6 PPMs (including one in‑person) may be unrealistic.</li><li><b>Response:</b> at the old rhythm of 2 PPMs a year, this requirement means attending 4 of the 6 meetings held the last 3 years with at least one in-person. With Attendance A=4 and Meetings M= 6, what would you suggest for A and M?</li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div>SO: Requiring in-person attendance is my main concern, it should not be mandatory. You may find at times that it is cheaper to travel out of Africa than within Africa, so not everyone can afford an in-person meeting. Let individual voters decide on candidates based on their historical participation.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><br></div><div><i>Appointment by consensus:</i></div><div><ul><li>Comment (Seun): Consensus‑based appointment could introduce subjectivity.</li><li><b>Response:</b> This WG makes decisions by consensus with appeal mechanisms in place. Appointing co-chairs via the same mechanisms should not be a problem. With the requirements stated at section 3.3.3, it should not be difficult to reach consensus on co-chairs candidates. While this may not be perfect, it is used worldwide by various WGs. “Community” votes rather bring more subjectivity. </li></ul></div><div><br></div><div><i>Code of Conduct reference:</i></div><div><ul><li>Comment (Seun): Simply refer to AFRINIC’s CoC.</li><li><b>Response:</b> By referring to “applicable CoC” the proposal avoids attaching to a particular CoC. Today we are using the “AFRINIC Community CoC” elaborated by the board ( <a href="https://afrinic.net/code" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/code</a> ), this may change in the future. We saw some recent CoC discussions on the list. </li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div>SO: Who determines which Code of Conduct (CoC) is "applicable" and which is not?</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><br></div><div><b>4. Governance Structure & Proposal Scope</b></div><div><i>Necessity of the Number Council:</i></div><div><ul><li>Comment (Seun): The Appeal Committee could perform the same role; RNC may be unnecessary.</li><li><b>Response: </b>The RNC’s roles encompass calling PPM and appointing interim co-chairs. So making the AC perform RNC’s role may not be appropriate.</li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What I am trying to communicate is that the RNC and its proposed roles are not required. There is value in having nomcom whose membership is more likely to change every year perform the role of getting nominations for PDWG Co-Chair. If both Co-Chairs resign, the Board should select one of the 3 NRO NC members to chair temporarily until a co-Chair is elected.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><br></div><div><i>Splitting the proposal into smaller documents:</i></div><div><ul><li>Comment (Sami): Consider withdrawing and splitting into multiple focused proposals.</li><li><b>Response:</b> The components are interdependent; splitting them would create incoherent intermediate states and procedural gaps. </li></ul></div></div></blockquote><div>SO: I looked at the problem enumerated below:<br><br><ul style="box-sizing:border-box;margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:10px;color:rgb(117,117,117);font-family:Quicksand,sans-serif;font-size:16px"><li style="box-sizing:border-box">Adopted policy proposals not ratified or not implemented</li><li style="box-sizing:border-box">No Public Policy Meeting - Non-renewal of co-chairs</li><li style="box-sizing:border-box">Non-renewal of appeal and recall committees</li><li style="box-sizing:border-box">Non-renewal of ASO AC/NRO NC representatives</li><li style="box-sizing:border-box">Frozen Resource Policy Discussion mailing list</li></ul>The problems stated in the policy as listed above (apart from the last which has been corrected) all stemmed from the Board not having a quorum. The idea that the volunteer PDWG should or can effectively operate when there is no Board in the future is wishful thinking that should not be encouraged. In fact, the PDP operation is mandated by the bylaws, and the Board has the fiduciary responsibility to oversee the entire organisation. It therefore seems to me that this policy attempts to address a governance issue through policy rather than through the bylaws. Bylaws is the way to ensure that the events that happened with the Board in the past does not repeat itself.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><br></div><div><i>Board ratification language:</i></div><div><ul><li>Comment (Seun): “Shall” implies the Board must ratify; the Board should be able to decline with reasons.</li><li><b>Response:</b> The text as written “If a policy proposal approved by the PDWG fails to be ratified by the board (inability or refusal by the board without reasons for 60 days), a petition for ratification can be initiated by a member of the PDWG.” it is meant to cover the two scenarios below:</li></ul></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>1. The Board is unable to act for 60 days (No quorum, No functioning Board, Legal or operational paralysis, etc.)</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>2. The Board refuses to ratify without giving reasons for 60 days (the Board says “no” but gives no justification, or The Board simply does nothing and provides no explanation.)</div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Any suggestions to improve the text if it is not clear enough ?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>SO: I think there may be a need to review the problem statement first so the rest of the document is better guided</div><div><br></div><div>Regards </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The authors thank the community for constructive feedback.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Grégoire</div><div><br></div><div><div dir="auto" style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;text-decoration:none"><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><br></div></div>
</div>
<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On May 27, 2026, at 2:45 PM, Sami Salih <<a href="mailto:sami.salih@outlook.com" target="_blank">sami.salih@outlook.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div>
<div><p><span style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt">Dear Colleagues,</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt">As a former PDWG Co-chair, I generally support the intent behind strengthening the autonomy and operational
continuity of the PDWG. The policy development process ultimately belongs to the African Internet community and should remain resilient regardless of operational or governance challenges affecting AFRINIC as an organisation.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt">At the same time, I believe it is important to recognize that this proposal introduces substantial structural,
operational, procedural, and governance changes to the PDP framework. In many respects, this is a major and transformative proposal rather than a routine procedural update.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt">From my experience with the PDP, the community process tends to work best when addressing clearly scoped issues
through focused and easy-to-understand proposals. In contrast, this proposal attempts to address many different governance, electoral, operational, disciplinary, and procedural matters simultaneously, which makes it difficult for the community to fully analyse,
discuss, and build meaningful consensus around all aspects at once.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt">IMHO, many of the ideas and intended improvements presented in this proposal are constructive and deserve serious
consideration. I also fully acknowledge and respect the extensive experience, effort, and strategic thinking of the authors in developing such a comprehensive framework proposal.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt">However, considering the breadth of the changes and the number of distinct governance and operational matters
being introduced simultaneously, my respectful recommendation would be to consider withdrawing the current proposal and restructuring this work into multiple smaller and more focused proposals. I believe this would make it significantly easier for the community
to understand, analyse, discuss, and build meaningful consensus around each individual topic independently, while improving overall community engagement and participation in the process.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)">With</span><span style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"> Regards,<br>
Sami Sali.</span></p>
<div dir="auto" style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)">
<br>
</div>
<div id="m_1159720981532522459ms-outlook-mobile-body-separator-line" dir="auto" style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt">
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt">
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div id="m_1159720981532522459ms-outlook-mobile-signature" dir="auto" style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)">
<div dir="auto" style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_MSFontService,-apple-system,Roboto,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(33,33,33)">
Sami Salih</div>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%">
<div id="m_1159720981532522459divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 25, 2026 8:43:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:dacostadarwin@gmail.com" target="_blank">dacostadarwin@gmail.com</a> <<a href="mailto:dacostadarwin@gmail.com" target="_blank">dacostadarwin@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a> <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] New Draft Policy Proposal - Amendment of the PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures AFPUB-2026-GEN-001-DRAFT01.</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Hello,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for sharing this proposal. My initial comments after a brief review are the following:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- A typical community member could also be an AFRINIC member. There is no reason to mandate that nomination supporters for the NRO NC must be both community members and AFRINIC members. Requiring one or 2 supporters from the service region should be sufficient.</div>
<div><br>
- The rpd is open to anyone that wishes to participate irrespective of origin, region or residence. It sure makes sense to restrict election participation to those with a historical record of involvement, either online or in-person to avoid historical experience
of DDOS on election day. However, there is no reason to restrict the selectorate/electorate to those in the region alone.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- I do not see the necessity of a Number Committee; it seems to create yet another layer. The Appeal committee which also serves as the recall committee can perform any intended role of the RNC. Its composition could be the 3 NRO NC members from the region,
a past co-chair, and a past appeal committee chair in a non-voting capacity. In situations where both Co-Chairs are no more, the Chair of the Appeal committee can temporarily take over until rpd appoints a new co-chair</div>
<div><br>
- As a former co-chair of PDWG, i find the proposed responsibilities of the Co-chairs as described in section 3.3.2 to be overly granular and quite policing-like for lack of a better word.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- I believe the proposed 3.3.7 should refer to AFRINIC CoC and that should be sufficient. The proposed penalties for violations look good, though they are a bit too wordy to me and the process leading to that is quite descriptive. We really need to give
the co-chairs the privilege of managing events as they deem applicable</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- The idea that a co-chair eligibility should be tied to attending in-person meetings during a specific period isn't realistic given our region's unique challenges. I understand it may be an effort to put a face to the name but restricting eligibility
to the last 2 years (which is basically last 4 PPM) isn't realistic.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- 3.3.3.3.3 suggests co-chairs will be appointed by consensus, that is an interesting point that i would definitely not support. This can lead to unnecessary subjectivity.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- I like the expectation of participation from Co-Chair hence 3.3.4 appeals to me as written.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Use of shall in 3.3.11 suggests that ratification is the only option for the Board. There should be an option for the Board to provide reasons for not ratifying and that should not be triggered by a petition. <br>
<br>
I may have more comments in future, but that is all from me for now.</div>
<div><br>
Regards</div>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">On Mon, 25 May 2026 at 10:20, <a href="mailto:dacostadarwin@gmail.com" target="_blank">
dacostadarwin@gmail.com</a> <<a href="mailto:dacostadarwin@gmail.com" target="_blank">dacostadarwin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Dear PDWG,<br>
<br>
We have received a new draft policy proposal - Amendment of the PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures AFPUB-2026-GEN-001-DRAFT01 from authors Grégoire EHOUMI, Noah Maina and Adeola A. P. AINA.<br>
<br>
The proposal contents are published at: <a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/afpub-2026-gen-001-draft01" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/afpub-2026-gen-001-draft01</a><br>
<br>
We encourage you to take some time to go through the proposal contents and provide feedback as follows :<br>
<br>
a) Do you support or oppose the proposal?<br>
<br>
b) If you oppose the proposal, state your reasons.<br>
<br>
c) Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?<br>
<br>
d) What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Vincent Ngundi & Darwin Da Costa<br>
AFRINIC PDWG Co-Chairs<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br clear="all">
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span>-- </span><br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<font color="#888888">
<blockquote style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;font-family:garamond,serif">
<i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Seun Ojedeji,<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">
</span></i>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</font><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>RPD mailing list<br><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div><div><br clear="all"></div><div><br></div><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><font color="#888888"><blockquote style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;font-family:garamond,serif">
<i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Seun Ojedeji,<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span></i><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!<br></blockquote></blockquote></font><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>