<div dir="auto">Hi Arnaud,<div dir="auto">These are two diffrent things. Its comparing Apples with oranges. When we know they are both fruits. </div><div dir="auto">Cheers</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Abdulkarim. </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Jun 14, 2026, 4:37 PM Arnaud AMELINA <<a href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com">amelnaud@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi PDW members, Hi AK, </div><div><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Roboto,-apple-system,"apple color emoji",BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;font-size:16px;white-space:pre-wrap">Are you suggesting that decisions made by consensus by the WG are lawless?</span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Roboto,-apple-system,"apple color emoji",BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;font-size:16px;white-space:pre-wrap"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Roboto,-apple-system,"apple color emoji",BlinkMacSystemFont,"Segoe UI",Roboto,Oxygen-Sans,Ubuntu,Cantarell,"Helvetica Neue",sans-serif;font-size:16px;white-space:pre-wrap">Regards </span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><pre style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">>+1 to Seun except that I agree that only people from the region should vote.
>
>I do not think Seun's concerns have been addressed, especially on: below
>and I have a few additional concerns
>1. Responsibilities in section 3.3.2 feel too granular and policing.
>
>2. Requiring attendance at 4 of the last 6 PPMs (including one in‑person)
>may be unrealistic. (I totally agree to this except if the requirement is
>personal funding for the one meeting.) Physical attendance does not show
>commitment; it’s about opportunities most times.
>
>3. Consensus‑based appointment could introduce subjectivity. I totally
>agree with this; it brings not just subjectivity but anarchy and
>lawlessness.
>
> 4. Registered PPM attendee voting... Does this include online attendees?
>Then I think we need to make up our mind on who should vote. My suggestion
>is members only should vote.
>
> 5. I totally disagree with having a recall committee and having recall
>committee decisions being final. This is subject to manipulation and abuse,
>and the chair is entirely at the mercy of few individuals called the recall
>committee. This is because the recall committee doesn’t appoint chairs,
>neither do 10 members appoint chairs. To remove chairs must be subjected to
>the same process as electing a chair. There must be a general vote with
>majority agreeing to recall the chair.
>
>
>
>*AK.*
>
><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"> </span></pre></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><pre style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">*Prof Abdulkarim Oloyede*
*Professor of Wireless Telecommunications *
*University of Ilorin. *
On Tue, Jun 9, 2026, 9:34 PM Gregoire EHOUMI via RPD <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd at afrinic.net</a>>
wrote:
><i> Dear PDWG,
</i>><i>
</i>><i> This digest summarises the key points raised by community members (Ben,
</i>><i> Seun, and Sami) regarding this policy proposal, along with the authors’
</i>><i> clarifications and responses.
</i>><i> It is organised into four themes for easier reading.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> *1. Corrections & Clarifications*
</i>><i> *Mailing list freeze clarification:*
</i>><i>
</i>><i> - Comment (Ben): The RPD list was not frozen; only community‑discuss
</i>><i> was moderated.
</i>><i> - *Response: *Acknowledged. The text will be corrected in Draft 2. It
</i>><i> was meant to say “ Inactive Resource Policy Discussion mailing list”
</i>><i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> *2. Participation, Representation & Elections*
</i>><i> *Nomination support requirements:*
</i>><i>
</i>><i> - Comment (Seun): No need for supporters to be both AFRINIC members
</i>><i> and community members.
</i>><i> - *Response:* The intent is to ensure support from at least one
</i>><i> contact of the membership. Participants in the PDP and the WG activities
</i>><i> are generally classified in 2 categories: “Registered contact of AFRINIC
</i>><i> member” and “ Non-registered contact of AFRINIC member”
</i>><i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> *Who can vote in NRO NC elections:*
</i>><i>
</i>><i> - Comment (Seun): No reason to restrict voting to people in the region.
</i>><i> - *Response:* This follows existing AFRINIC rules. For NRO NC, only
</i>><i> participants from the region(excluding staff) vote.
</i>><i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> *3. Co‑Chair Roles, Eligibility & Processes*
</i>><i> *Level of detail in co‑chair responsibilities:*
</i>><i>
</i>><i> - Comment (Seun): Responsibilities in section 3.3.2 feel too granular
</i>><i> and policing.
</i>><i> - *Response: *The detail is intentional, based on RFC 2418 and other
</i>><i> RIRs practices, to avoid ambiguity. The WG should be predictable.
</i>><i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> *Eligibility criteria — meeting attendance:*
</i>><i>
</i>><i> - Comment (Seun): Requiring attendance at 4 of the last 6 PPMs
</i>><i> (including one in‑person) may be unrealistic.
</i>><i> - *Response:* at the old rhythm of 2 PPMs a year, this requirement
</i>><i> means attending 4 of the 6 meetings held the last 3 years with at least
</i>><i> one in-person. With Attendance A=4 and Meetings M= 6, what would you
</i>><i> suggest for A and M?
</i>><i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> *Appointment by consensus:*
</i>><i>
</i>><i> - Comment (Seun): Consensus‑based appointment could introduce
</i>><i> subjectivity.
</i>><i> - *Response:* This WG makes decisions by consensus with appeal
</i>><i> mechanisms in place. Appointing co-chairs via the same mechanisms should
</i>><i> not be a problem. With the requirements stated at section 3.3.3, it should
</i>><i> not be difficult to reach consensus on co-chairs candidates. While this may
</i>><i> not be perfect, it is used worldwide by various WGs. “Community” votes
</i>><i> rather bring more subjectivity.
</i>><i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> *Code of Conduct reference:*
</i>><i>
</i>><i> - Comment (Seun): Simply refer to AFRINIC’s CoC.
</i>><i> - *Response:* By referring to “applicable CoC” the proposal avoids
</i>><i> attaching to a particular CoC. Today we are using the “AFRINIC Community
</i>><i> CoC” elaborated by the board ( <a href="https://afrinic.net/code" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://afrinic.net/code</a> ), this may
</i>><i> change in the future. We saw some recent CoC discussions on the list.
</i>><i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> *4. Governance Structure & Proposal Scope*
</i>><i> *Necessity of the Number Council:*
</i>><i>
</i>><i> - Comment (Seun): The Appeal Committee could perform the same role;
</i>><i> RNC may be unnecessary.
</i>><i> - *Response: *The RNC’s roles encompass calling PPM and appointing
</i>><i> interim co-chairs. So making the AC perform RNC’s role may not be
</i>><i> appropriate.
</i>><i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> *Splitting the proposal into smaller documents:*
</i>><i>
</i>><i> - Comment (Sami): Consider withdrawing and splitting into multiple
</i>><i> focused proposals.
</i>><i> - *Response:* The components are interdependent; splitting them would
</i>><i> create incoherent intermediate states and procedural gaps.
</i>><i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> *Board ratification language:*
</i>><i>
</i>><i> - Comment (Seun): “Shall” implies the Board must ratify; the Board
</i>><i> should be able to decline with reasons.
</i>><i> - *Response:* The text as written “If a policy proposal approved by
</i>><i> the PDWG fails to be ratified by the board (inability or refusal by the
</i>><i> board without reasons for 60 days), a petition for ratification can be
</i>><i> initiated by a member of the PDWG.” it is meant to cover the two scenarios
</i>><i> below:
</i>><i>
</i>><i> 1. The Board is unable to act for 60 days (No quorum, No functioning
</i>><i> Board, Legal or operational paralysis, etc.)
</i>><i> 2. The Board refuses to ratify without giving reasons for 60 days (the
</i>><i> Board says “no” but gives no justification, or The Board simply does
</i>><i> nothing and provides no explanation.)
</i>><i> Any suggestions to improve the text if it is not clear enough ?
</i>><i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> The authors thank the community for constructive feedback.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Regards,
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Grégoire
</i>><i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> On May 27, 2026, at 2:45 PM, Sami Salih <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">sami.salih at outlook.com</a>> wrote:
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Dear Colleagues,
</i>><i>
</i>><i> As a former PDWG Co-chair, I generally support the intent behind
</i>><i> strengthening the autonomy and operational continuity of the PDWG. The
</i>><i> policy development process ultimately belongs to the African Internet
</i>><i> community and should remain resilient regardless of operational or
</i>><i> governance challenges affecting AFRINIC as an organisation.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> At the same time, I believe it is important to recognize that this
</i>><i> proposal introduces substantial structural, operational, procedural, and
</i>><i> governance changes to the PDP framework. In many respects, this is a major
</i>><i> and transformative proposal rather than a routine procedural update.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> From my experience with the PDP, the community process tends to work best
</i>><i> when addressing clearly scoped issues through focused and
</i>><i> easy-to-understand proposals. In contrast, this proposal attempts to
</i>><i> address many different governance, electoral, operational, disciplinary,
</i>><i> and procedural matters simultaneously, which makes it difficult for the
</i>><i> community to fully analyse, discuss, and build meaningful consensus around
</i>><i> all aspects at once.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> IMHO, many of the ideas and intended improvements presented in this
</i>><i> proposal are constructive and deserve serious consideration. I also fully
</i>><i> acknowledge and respect the extensive experience, effort, and strategic
</i>><i> thinking of the authors in developing such a comprehensive framework
</i>><i> proposal.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> However, considering the breadth of the changes and the number of distinct
</i>><i> governance and operational matters being introduced simultaneously, my
</i>><i> respectful recommendation would be to consider withdrawing the current
</i>><i> proposal and restructuring this work into multiple smaller and more focused
</i>><i> proposals. I believe this would make it significantly easier for the
</i>><i> community to understand, analyse, discuss, and build meaningful consensus
</i>><i> around each individual topic independently, while improving overall
</i>><i> community engagement and participation in the process.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> With Regards,
</i>><i> Sami Sali.
</i>><i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Sami Salih
</i>><i> ------------------------------
</i>><i> *From:* Seun Ojedeji <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">seun.ojedeji at gmail.com</a>>
</i>><i> *Sent:* Monday, May 25, 2026 8:43:56 PM
</i>><i> *To:* <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">dacostadarwin at gmail.com</a> <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">dacostadarwin at gmail.com</a>>
</i>><i> *Cc:* <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd at afrinic.net</a> <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd at afrinic.net</a>>
</i>><i> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] New Draft Policy Proposal - Amendment of the PDP
</i>><i> Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures AFPUB-2026-GEN-001-DRAFT01.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Hello,
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Thanks for sharing this proposal. My initial comments after a brief review
</i>><i> are the following:
</i>><i>
</i>><i> - A typical community member could also be an AFRINIC member. There is no
</i>><i> reason to mandate that nomination supporters for the NRO NC must be both
</i>><i> community members and AFRINIC members. Requiring one or 2 supporters from
</i>><i> the service region should be sufficient.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> - The rpd is open to anyone that wishes to participate irrespective of
</i>><i> origin, region or residence. It sure makes sense to restrict election
</i>><i> participation to those with a historical record of involvement, either
</i>><i> online or in-person to avoid historical experience of DDOS on election
</i>><i> day. However, there is no reason to restrict the selectorate/electorate to
</i>><i> those in the region alone.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> - I do not see the necessity of a Number Committee; it seems to create yet
</i>><i> another layer. The Appeal committee which also serves as the recall
</i>><i> committee can perform any intended role of the RNC. Its composition could
</i>><i> be the 3 NRO NC members from the region, a past co-chair, and a past appeal
</i>><i> committee chair in a non-voting capacity. In situations where both
</i>><i> Co-Chairs are no more, the Chair of the Appeal committee can temporarily
</i>><i> take over until rpd appoints a new co-chair
</i>><i>
</i>><i> - As a former co-chair of PDWG, i find the proposed responsibilities of
</i>><i> the Co-chairs as described in section 3.3.2 to be overly granular and
</i>><i> quite policing-like for lack of a better word.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> - I believe the proposed 3.3.7 should refer to AFRINIC CoC and that should
</i>><i> be sufficient. The proposed penalties for violations look good, though they
</i>><i> are a bit too wordy to me and the process leading to that is quite
</i>><i> descriptive. We really need to give the co-chairs the privilege of managing
</i>><i> events as they deem applicable
</i>><i>
</i>><i> - The idea that a co-chair eligibility should be tied to attending
</i>><i> in-person meetings during a specific period isn't realistic given our
</i>><i> region's unique challenges. I understand it may be an effort to put a face
</i>><i> to the name but restricting eligibility to the last 2 years (which is
</i>><i> basically last 4 PPM) isn't realistic.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> - 3.3.3.3.3 suggests co-chairs will be appointed by consensus, that is an
</i>><i> interesting point that i would definitely not support. This can lead to
</i>><i> unnecessary subjectivity.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> - I like the expectation of participation from Co-Chair hence 3.3.4
</i>><i> appeals to me as written.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> - Use of shall in 3.3.11 suggests that ratification is the only option for
</i>><i> the Board. There should be an option for the Board to provide reasons for
</i>><i> not ratifying and that should not be triggered by a petition.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> I may have more comments in future, but that is all from me for now.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Regards
</i>><i>
</i>><i> On Mon, 25 May 2026 at 10:20, <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">dacostadarwin at gmail.com</a> <
</i>><i> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">dacostadarwin at gmail.com</a>> wrote:
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Dear PDWG,
</i>><i>
</i>><i> We have received a new draft policy proposal - Amendment of the PDP
</i>><i> Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures AFPUB-2026-GEN-001-DRAFT01
</i>><i> from authors Grégoire EHOUMI, Noah Maina and Adeola A. P. AINA.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> The proposal contents are published at:
</i>><i> <a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/afpub-2026-gen-001-draft01" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/afpub-2026-gen-001-draft01</a>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> We encourage you to take some time to go through the proposal contents
</i>><i> and provide feedback as follows :
</i>><i>
</i>><i> a) Do you support or oppose the proposal?
</i>><i>
</i>><i> b) If you oppose the proposal, state your reasons.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> c) Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
</i>><i>
</i>><i> d) What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Regards,
</i>><i> Vincent Ngundi & Darwin Da Costa
</i>><i> AFRINIC PDWG Co-Chairs
</i>><i> _______________________________________________
</i>><i> RPD mailing list
</i>><i> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD at afrinic.net</a>
</i>><i> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</i>><i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> --
</i>><i> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
</i>><i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> *Seun Ojedeji, *
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
</i>><i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> _______________________________________________
</i>><i> RPD mailing list
</i>><i> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD at afrinic.net</a>
</i>><i> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</i>><i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> _______________________________________________
</i>><i> RPD mailing list
</i>><i> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD at afrinic.net</a>
</i>><i> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</i>></pre>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
<br>
<div><a href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng" style="font-size:1.3em" target="_blank">Website</a><span style="font-size:1.3em">,</span><span style="font-size:1.3em"> </span><span style="font-size:1.3em"><a href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin" target="_blank">Weekly Bulletin</a> <a href="http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/" target="_blank">UGPortal</a> <a href="https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/" target="_blank">PGPortal</a> <a href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/more-resources/e-notices/6845-how-to-resolve-email-portal-login-problems-for-staff-and-students" target="_blank">HelpDesk</a></span></div><div><br></div>