<div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Dear Haitham,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Could you clarify the agreed mailing-list rule supporting this restriction, and distinguish formal BRC submissions from discussion of their implications for the PDP?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Kind regards,</div><div dir="auto">Fundiswa</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 14 Sept 2026, 14:00 , <<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send RPD mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd-owner@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. bylaws consultation aspects that impact the PDP/community<br>
(Qhawe Ngubane)<br>
2. Re: [External] bylaws consultation aspects that impact the<br>
PDP/community (Hytham El-Nakhal)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2026 08:45:26 +0200<br>
From: Qhawe Ngubane <<a href="mailto:qhawengubane@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">qhawengubane@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
Subject: [rpd] bylaws consultation aspects that impact the<br>
PDP/community<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAOejeSgQSLnmjJnc0kHU=<a href="mailto:OgTjP2HVtDeLcUaEPTbPvXobcD%2BoQ@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">OgTjP2HVtDeLcUaEPTbPvXobcD+oQ@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Good morning colleagues,<br>
<br>
I've spent the weekend going over the various points/suggestions and<br>
propositions put forward and it's inspiring how much deliberate engagement<br>
there is on this topic and many others.<br>
<br>
I'd like to take this opportunity to ventilate a few points, specifically<br>
in regards to propositions made by Mike and Benson:<br>
<br>
I appreciate the distinction between the BRC?s formal submission process<br>
and discussion on this list. There is no suggestion that RPD correspondence<br>
replaces a consultation submission. However, the nomination issue raised by<br>
Mike Burns and Benson deserves a substantive answer alongside the<br>
clarification about where comments must be lodged.<br>
<br>
I would take their concern one step further: changing who appoints the<br>
Nomination Committee is not sufficient if the committee still decides which<br>
otherwise eligible alternatives members may vote for.<br>
<br>
Even an independently appointed committee could restrict electoral choice<br>
through its assessment of candidates. Independence from the Board and<br>
respect for members? electoral authority are separate requirements.<br>
<br>
The draft makes useful improvements. Article 9.2 expressly protects the<br>
committee?s nomination and election functions from Board or CEO direction,<br>
while Article 9.6 prohibits assessment criteria beyond those provided in<br>
the Constitution. I support those safeguards.<br>
<br>
Nevertheless, Articles 9.3(b)(iv)?(v) provide for competency assessments<br>
and interviews, and Article 9.4(c) connects candidate assessment to the<br>
composition of an effective and balanced Board. These provisions need a<br>
clearer distinction between verifying eligibility and selecting the<br>
committee?s preferred candidates.<br>
<br>
A closed list of assessment criteria does not, by itself, settle that<br>
distinction. The Constitution should establish whether a criterion is a<br>
minimum requirement that a candidate must satisfy or information that helps<br>
members choose between eligible candidates. Those are different functions.<br>
<br>
Consider two candidates who both meet the applicable minimum requirements.<br>
One supports AFRINIC?s existing institutional direction; the other proposes<br>
a narrower mandate and substantial governance reform. The committee should<br>
not be able to exclude the second merely because it considers the first a<br>
better fit for the existing Board.<br>
<br>
Likewise, once both candidates satisfy the required standard, one<br>
candidate?s greater experience should not automatically make the other<br>
ineligible. A comparative advantage is a reason voters may prefer someone,<br>
not necessarily a reason to remove their opponent from the ballot.<br>
<br>
The accountability principle I would apply is that those administering an<br>
institution should not displace the choices of those to whom they are<br>
accountable. The concern is structural, rather than an allegation about the<br>
intentions of any particular committee or director.<br>
<br>
I would therefore propose wording along these lines, with corresponding<br>
changes to the assessment provisions:<br>
<br>
?Every duly nominated candidate who satisfies the Constitution?s expressly<br>
defined minimum eligibility requirements and is not disqualified under<br>
applicable law shall be included on the ballot. Comparative assessments of<br>
qualifications, experience or contribution to Board composition may inform<br>
voters but shall not, by themselves, exclude an otherwise eligible<br>
candidate. Support for or opposition to existing policies, office-holders<br>
or lawful constitutional reforms shall not constitute a ground for<br>
exclusion.?<br>
<br>
This would preserve legitimate qualification checks without allowing them<br>
to become a preliminary election conducted by the committee. Any minimum<br>
competency requirements should be clearly distinguished from desirable<br>
attributes, rather than leaving the distinction to be determined during<br>
candidate assessment.<br>
<br>
There is also a concrete connection to the PDP discussion: Article 11.3<br>
places the Board within the policy framework through its ratification role.<br>
Rules affecting who can contest Board seats therefore matter to the<br>
community?s relationship with that framework, even though constitutional<br>
amendments follow a different approval process.<br>
<br>
Ultimately, my position is to support eligibility verification, but oppose<br>
discretionary pre-selection among candidates who meet the required<br>
standard. Members should be able to elect a different institutional<br>
direction, not choose between candidates a committee considers preferable.<br>
<br>
Thank you for your attention and I hope the above recommendations are<br>
wholly welcome and considered.<br>
<br>
Kind Regards<br>
Simphiwe Ngubane<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260914/955d3797/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260914/955d3797/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2026 09:20:15 +0000<br>
From: Hytham El-Nakhal <<a href="mailto:hytham@tra.gov.eg" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">hytham@tra.gov.eg</a>><br>
To: "<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] [External] bylaws consultation aspects that impact<br>
the PDP/community<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:1789377615316.40380@tra.gov.eg" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">1789377615316.40380@tra.gov.eg</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"<br>
<br>
Dear Qhawe, Nonjabulo, Mphoentle and Fundiswa,<br>
<br>
<br>
Thanks for your emails related to the Bylaws Review process.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Bylaws Review Committee (BRC) concluded the third round of community consultation on 30 August 2026 at 23:59 UTC.<br>
<br>
<br>
So, no more discussion for Bylaws Articles review will be accepted on the rpd mailing-list.<br>
<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
<br>
Haitham el Nakhal<br>
<br>
PDWG Co-Chair<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
From: Qhawe Ngubane <<a href="mailto:qhawengubane@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">qhawengubane@gmail.com</a>><br>
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2026 9:45 AM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
Subject: [External] [rpd] bylaws consultation aspects that impact the PDP/community<br>
<br>
Good morning colleagues,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I'd like to take this opportunity to ventilate a few points, specifically in regards to propositions made by Mike and Benson:<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I would therefore propose wording along these lines, with corresponding changes to the assessment provisions:<br>
<br>
?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.?<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Thank you for your attention and I hope the above recommendations are wholly welcome and considered.<br>
<br>
Kind Regards<br>
Simphiwe Ngubane<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of RPD Digest, Vol 224, Issue 6<br>
***********************************<br>
</blockquote></div>