Day 1

 

AFRINIC-35 | PPM Day 1 | 1 June 2022

 

• Youtube video recording

 

1) Welcome, Introduction & Agenda Overview

 

Delegates were welcomed to the meeting (by Darwin Da Costa, PDWG Chair).

The agenda was presented  and  is as follows:

 

09:00 - 09:10	Overview of the logistics of the AFRINIC-35 PPM
09:10 - 09:15	Welcome, Introduction & Agenda Overview
09:15 - 09:40	The AFRINIC PDP & Building Consensus
09:40 - 09:50	Questions & Answers
09:50 - 10:00	TEA BREAK
10:00 - 11:25	PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures AFPUB-2020-GEN-002-DRAFT05
11:25 - 11:35	TEA BREAK
11:35 - 13:00	Update of PDP AFPUB-2021-GEN-002-DRAFT03
13:00	Closing Remarks for Day 1

 

Mr Da Costa also went through the guidelines for the participation of both online and onsite participants. He mentioned that the Code of Conduct is expected to be adhered to and that participants shall respect the agenda and keep their remarks, questions and comments related to the subject under discussion. Question Time shall be open for both onsite and online participants. The latter can also use the Q&A window on the Meetecho conference platform and for those following the PPM on Facebook and Youtube, the questions will be monitored and copied to the Q&A window of the Meetecho conference platform. Participants may also subscribe to rpd@afrinic.net and make their contributions to the policy proposals and also consult the RPD archives to familiarise themselves with the discussions on the policy proposal.

The following guidelines were recommended for participation notably:-

1. Person to introduce himself by stating name and affiliation
2. Respect the timekeeping and keep the remarks reasonably short
3. Respect language differences, translators and remote participants
4. Speak slowly and clearly
5. If opposing or supporting any policy, an objective reason needs to be given, bearing in mind the Code of Conduct
6. In case microphones are closed before having the chance to speak, the message may be posted to the RPD Mailing list which will also be monitored.

 

---

 

2) The AFRINIC PDP & Building Consensus

• Presentation slide URL

 

Vincent Ngundi, PDWG Chair, explained the AFRINIC Policy Development Process based on these key points:

1) AFRINIC Internet Number Resource Policies. 

These are:-

1. Guidelines by which AFRINIC manages Internet number resources
2. Guidelines for the services offered by AFRINIC around these resources
3. Developed by the AFRINIC Internet Community (PDWG), which is referred to as the Policy Development Working Group(PDWG)
4. Developed through the AFRINIC Policy Development Process(PDP)

 

2) The Policy Development Working Group

1. Another name for the African Internet Community is composed of anyone that is involved in discussing a policy proposal.
2. Chaired by 2 PDWG Chairs (volunteers)
3. Supported by AFRINIC through the Policy Liaison Team for secretariat duties - represented by Madhvi and Brice

 

3) Roles of the PDP Co-Chairs

1. Moderate discussions in the RPD MAiling list
2. Determine whether there is rough consensus during open public policy proposal discussions. This will be seen in a short while the policy proposals on the agenda will be discussed
3. If a policy proposal gathers consensus, initiate and terminate the final review of proposals (Last Call) 
4. Once consensus is achieved at the Last Call period, PDWG Chairs draft a report with the chronology of events and outcomes, which is then sent to the Board for ratification.
5. Publish the minutes of the proceedings of the PPM in collaboration with the Secretariat. 

 

4) Policy Development Process

Set of steps by which the PDWG deliberates and adopts the policies that guide the use of Internet number resources in the AFRINIC service region. It is supposed to be open, transparent and bottom-up.

 

A) PDP - Policy Development Process

• Is a documented policy itself. Documented in Section 3 of the Consolidated Policy Manual and is subject to change like any other policy
• Procedures in PDP are designed to be fair, open and objective. It also provides ample opportunity for participation by any interested party as long as the interest is towards the development of the Internet in Africa
• Decisions are based on rough consensus. A Short presentation will follow on this topic.
• Changes to the PDP as it’s also a policy must also follow the PDP
• One of the reasons we need policies is that policies can evolve to adapt to new situations that prevail.

 

B) The PDP Principles

1. Openness - Policy development happens in an open forum. The RPD mailing list is open to everyone. Anyone can participate but in adherence to the Code of Conduct.
2. Transparency - Everything is documented and publicly available through the RPD mailing list archives and website
3. Fairness - The goal of the discussions is to ensure that Internet number resources which are limited are fairly distributed amongst the AFRINIC Internet Community.

 

C) PDP Simplified

Anyone can submit a proposal;

• The proposal is posted to the RPD list and on the website
• The proposal is discussed in RPD List for at least 4 weeks
• The proposal is discussed at Public Policy Meeting
• If a rough consensus is reached at the PPM, the proposal moves to Last Call in the RPD Mailing list for at least 2 weeks
• If consensus is determined at the end of Last Call, the report is sent to the Board for ratification of the policy.
• Once the Board ratifies the policy, it is implemented by AFRINIC Secretariat.

 

5) AFRINIC Consolidated Policy Manual

All ratified policies are documented in the AFRINIC Policy Manual. Before the manual, there was a list of distinct policies on the website. The CPM helps in making sure that all policies are documented together for ease of reference and readability.

The manual is updated once new policies are ratified and implemented.

 

6) Building and Determining Consensus

Next, Vincent Ngundi presented on Building and determining Consensus which he mentioned is the key role of the Co-chairs of the PDWG.

Reference was made to AFRINIC’s Consolidated Policy Manual (CPM), specifically, Section 3.0 which highlights that the objective of the PDP is to provide ample opportunity for participation and comment by all interested parties and to establish widespread Internet Community consensus. Secondly, Section 3.4.2 of the CPM stipulates that the Chairs determine whether consensus has been achieved during the Public Policy Meeting.

Vincent Ngundi elaborated on the three elements which help in building and determining consensus, namely:

1. RFC 7282 which provides a guide to building and determining consensus, was developed for the IETF which is an environment similar to ours.

2. Moderation of Policy Proposal Discussions - the role of Co-chairs is defined as: 
2.1. to identify objections and contentious issues regarding the policy proposal and objections need to be objective and backed by facts and reasons.
2.2. to track open issues that are yet to be addressed by the Author(s) and participants

3. Roles of the Co-chairs in Building Consensus(key element):
3.1 to direct the Policy Development Working Group toward areas that are contentious;
3.2 to encourage participants to focus and seek consensus on contentious areas;
3.3 to ensure that concerns raised through the staff impact assessment are addressed.

Also, Vincent Ngundi clarified that the objective of the Co-chairs is to always aim for rough consensus, if not absolute consensus.

He also raised the following:

1. Rough consensus is not built/determined through a VOTING mechanism;
2. Rather by ensuring that all objections/concerns are adequately addressed;
3. Look/seek consensus throughout the process (for each contentious issue);
4. No VOTING mechanism was applied at any point in time (to avoid “vote stuffing”);
5. As an example, 100 people for and 5 people against might not be a “rough consensus”. If a minority of participants have a valid objection, that objection must be dealt with before a rough consensus can be declared;
6. 5 people for and 100 people against might still be a rough consensus, as long as there are no valid objections that have not been addressed.

Mr Darwin Da Costa then opened the Q&A and requested questions from the floor.

Online participants had the following queries/comments:-

1. Sylvain Baya from CmNOG - mentioned that the PDWG have forgotten to mention 3.6 of the CPM that mentions that PDWG Chairs can vary the process.
2. Chuene - on the matter of rough consensus, if only 10 people agree and 100 people disagree, in terms of percentages, does not justify rough consensus

Mr Vincent Ngundi responded by saying that it all depends on how objective and valid those objections are as we can have objections without reasons. In regard to technical resources, technology does not lie. The objections need to be raised with valid concerns and there are ways to determine the validity of these concerns.

Jordi mentioned that while the PDWG Chairs mentioned that policies are guidelines, he says policies are rules.

Jason wanted more clarification on the process of rough consensus.

Mr Vincent Ngundi mentioned that Section 3.6 Varying the process is part of the PDP but is meant for exceptional circumstances.

 

---

 

3) Proposal #1: PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures - AFPUB-2020-GEN-002-DRAFT05

• Proposal URL
• Presentation URL

 

3.1 PDWG Chair introduction of the DPP and Discussion Flow

Darwin Da Costa announced the proposal which will be discussed and called upon the authors Alain and Noah to present.

 

3.2 Author’s presentation of DPP

Alain Aina proceeded with his presentation.

Alain Aina started by asking how many people in the room read the policy proposal before.

He said he made a request to print the policy proposal and put that on the desk of participants in the past. We can even use a tablet or whatever format. We need to find a way to ensure that participants read the proposal.

Anyway, at this stage, we should talk about the difference between the previous and current versions.

This is not amending the PDP. What we are doing here is to set clear guidelines for the Working Group. The PDP said we will have a working group and it's the working group that discusses policy proposals. This is important.

Secondly, what we put together here is not Alain and Noah's invention. What we are trying to do is to look at how the working group operate at IETF. So we follow BCP-25 and also how the other RIRs which use working groups operate.

We have been presenting, and looking at the discussion on the mailing list and we are on version 5. We will not go back again to the old and focus on new substantive issues.

From version 4 to version 5 what we did is mostly two things:

• trying to address most of the legal observations
• and some of the concerns we received at the last policy meeting. One of them was to clarify the requirement.

We said some rules. Before you must attend a certain number of meetings of the last 3 years. We clarified it and we say instead: the last 6 meetings, you must attend 4 and at least one of them must be face-to-face because online and face-to-face are different.

We also say that to be a good co-chair, those who managed to have experience, in proposing documents and going through the process, these people are good candidates. Because if you have never been through this process you may not see how it is because: collecting feedback, talking to people one to one and trying to build consensus when you are a document author, can help you to be a good co-chair. So we amended and introduced that one.

 We also amended the section on appeal because we say that when the co-chair is moderating the Working Group, it may happen that some people misbehaving get their posting rights suspended. The original provision was that this person should appeal to the CEO but the comments we had from the legal and the community as we are creating duplicity because there is already an appeal committee. Why do we want to go to the CEO?

We amended and said that for example if Seun writes I will be suspended for some reasons(jokes), then he should appeal to the appeal committee.

So previously we were trying to keep this very short. If you have your rights suspended, you appeal to the CEO, CEO talks to you and the co-chairs and resolve. But if you appeal to the appeal committee, we all know the appeal committee process. Sometimes it may take longer.

But the recommendation from the legal, we should leave all appeals to go to the appeal committee. This is what we say.

We also amended something saying that it was from "shall" to "may" because people should know when we are doing policy we have: must, shall, should, may, etc. Before it was said: that someone who disagrees with actions taken by the co-chairs "shall". We say: no. I "may" disagree but I may not decide to appeal.

We also amended the definition of the Working Group because the previous definition we have was: "the Working Group is the place where we discuss policies proposal for Internet Numbers resource management and any other related topics". The legal said we should remove the"any other related topics" and this Working Group only discuss policies proposal.

This is the basis of the amendments.

For those who have not read the proposal, this is what we are trying to do. If you look at the PDP, it said Working Group has 2 co-chairs but it said nothing about how all this thing really works and it leads us to all this trouble we are having here. So we are trying to put clear guidelines.

We put clear role and responsibility of the 2 co-chairs which is not currently the case. We define a clear procedure for the Working Group. Because in the Working Group, how do you regulate yourself, how do you move forward, etc?

Then we define how we appoint co-chairs. We appoint co-chairs on a consensus basis or if we can't reach a consensus for some reason we will use a secret ballot for a specific voting college.

And then if we can't we will go through an interim appointment then we have a provision for recall, for the resignation of co-chairs and also have a provision for individual behaviour.

So consensus ... and this has been discussed many times.

Working Group makes decisions by consensus and we believe we should also appoint co-chairs by consensus and then we will go to the election as last resort.

So the co-chairs should lead because this is the co-chair's role to lead the process to determine consensus on their appointment.

And if for some reason we have no co-chairs, we call for the CEO to lead the consensus process and we will do the voting college.

We define the voting college here: past co-chairs, past board members, and past CEOs would form the college to go through secret voting.

This voting is special. It's "ranking voting". it's not the vote where you select one among others. You should rank. If I don't have this, I can leave this one, If I don't have this I leave this one then this is my least preferred. It's not that you have a pool of people and you come and say "this is my .. ": no. It must be a ranking vote for this college.

This is basically the process. We start the call of nominations on the list 60 days before. We closed for 30 days. If we have 0 candidates, then the seat is vacant.

Then board appoints an interim. If we have 1 or more candidates, then we come to face to face like this. The first agenda item is to appoint.

Then if it is one candidate, do we have a consensus for the sole candidate to take the position? if yes, we appoint. If not, the seat is vacant.

Then if we have more than one candidate, 2 or + we still go for the consensus. If we got consensus on 1 among the candidates, we have a co-chair otherwise we will go for the voting and then if we can't have voted for some reason the board appoints an interim.

 

Recall of co-chairs

Apparently, to recall co-chairs now, you only need support from 5 Working Group. But we are saying that 5 is too small. 5 was okay 10 years ago and now we have more people participating and topics have become so complex.

Before you can recall a co-chair, you put a proposal to recall the co-chair, you need to also rally 10 different people from different organisations who have participated in the WG activities. Then the Board should form an appeal committee and we clearly define who should be members: CoE should appoint 1 member, One GC member and 1 community member should form that recall committee.

 

How do we moderate the WG?

This is also very important. If we do not adhere to clear rules we will always be in trouble. After we close the discussions, let's say someone comes and wants to reopen it, etc, etc,...

As everywhere, we were having a discussion we should make progress. If when we are having a discussion on the mailing list or face-to-face when people put inputs, the co-chairs must be able to evaluate. We propose some criteria here. Either it’s old: you can't discuss something we already discussed. You will be pointed to go read this document, go read these archives. or if you are still late, the point you brought is a minor point and not really changing how things work, we will point to your previous discussion.

It is important for people because we hear people saying: that we are rejecting inputs. No, we are not rejecting inputs. The co-chairs should be able to point you to the archives.

After reading and you still think you have valid point, you can still bring it. But we can't just allow people to just keep repeating the same thing.

It can be a timing issue if the point you are raising is not yet on the agenda or if it's out of scope. We tried to define this for the co-chairs to be able to manage. We need to make progress, we really need to make progress.

Alain also mentioned he wanted this to be clear: the role here is not to reject. That's why Vincent in the presentation said this thing(the PDP) is open and transparent and everything must be archived.

Co-chairs should be able to tell you: "we discussed this, we resolved this, this is the reference, but still if you still have a valid point, you can still come. And people should also know that if your point is minor according to the co-chair, but if the Working Group think they want to discuss, they can still ask the co-chairs to allow them to discuss.

We are not putting the rules to make the co-chair king decide. We should not forget that the Working Group has the final say at the end of the day.

 

Individual behaviours

It can happen that sometimes some people go rogue on the mailing list or during a face-to-face meeting. We defined a clear process to privately reach out then publicly reach out and then if he continues, take some actions.

 

This is the flowchart

Reactions and issues

The thing we discussed was an appointment by consensus. He thinks we have nothing to add. It has been extensively discussed.

Recall of co-chairs, some people were concerned. We have enough discussion on that. Maybe the co-chairs have other issues but from our view, these were the main concerns.

Then staff and legal, we address most of the legal concerns except 2:

• why do you impose that candidate for the co-chair should reside in the region?
• the second one is: why do you want to have a separate college voting instead of allowing the Working Group itself to vote. That one also, we cleared that one.

The staff has said they would not have any issue if they have to implement but we will hear from staff and the co-chairs if there are any things we did not take into consideration.

 

3.3 Staff Impact Assessment

Presentation URL

Madhvi Gokool from the AFRINIC secretariat presented the impact assessment of the proposal. She mentioned that the staff interpretation and understanding of the proposal are as follows:-

This policy proposal brings some changes to the functioning of the Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) as follows:-

1. PDWG Co-chairs responsibilities
2. Appointment of PDWG co-chairs
3. Clarifies what needs to happen if one or both co-chairs are recalled
4. Clarifies how to proceed should a co-chair resign
5. Mentions that if the working group finds itself without a co-chair, AFRINIC CEO will lead the consensus process.
6. Describes the operations of the PDWG such as the moderation of the PDWG discussions and sessions, individual behaviours in public policy meetings
7. Appeals - Someone whose posting privileges have been suspended can appeal against these decisions to the appeal committee
8. The Board appoints interim co-chairs within a prescribed timeline
9. Clarifies on those eligible to be in the voting register, should the last resort online secret ballot be used to select the PDWG Chair(s).
10. In the case of recall of PDWG Chair(s), the proposal mentions the recall needs to be supported by at least 10 other persons from 10 different organisations and that these persons must have been subscribed to the working group mailing list for at least one(01) year and attended at least one (1) AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting during the last two (2) years, either in-person or remotely.
11. The proposal also mentions the criteria that the AFRINIC Board shall use to appoint the members of the Recall Committee, as well as guidelines for the consideration of a recall and a 4-week timeline for the recall committee to have done its work.
12. Active participation of candidates for the PDWG Chairs position will be determined by the PDWG when assessing the candidate.

 

Impact on Registry Functions - None

Meeting Platforms - Restriction of participation to be also implemented via the AFRINIC meeting platform for online/hybrid events.

Online voting Platform

An online voting platform will be required to host the online secret ballot.

The voting register is defined in the proposal and consists of past PDP WG co-chairs, past board of directors chairs, and past CEOs who completed at least one term and have not been recalled. The list of names is available and accessible to the online voting platform will be subject to identity verification.

Mailing Lists - PDWG Chairs will be subscribed to members-discuss mailing lists as observers.

Financial Assessment - Elections or Voting Platform are outsourced and therefore budget needs to be planned accordingly.

Legal Assessment

A) Under paragraph 3.3.3 of the proposed policy (5th paragraph), reference is made to – “Any natural person residing in a country from the AFRINIC service region is allowed to volunteer”.

It is apposite to state that whilst AFRINIC is a Regional Internet community, it is an acceptable practice at AFRINIC to allow persons not necessarily residing within the AFRINIC service region to subscribe and participate in its PDWG.

In view of the above, therefore, refraining persons NOT residing in the AFRINIC service region from serving as PDWG’s co-chairs would appear to be unfair in these circumstances.

B) Under paragraph 3.3.3 of the proposed policy (9th paragraph), reference is made to “If no consensus can be reached and more than one candidate is being evaluated, then an online secret ballot to appoint the new co-chair will be held within two weeks after the PPM. The secret ballot shall be opened to past PDPWG co-chairs, past board of directors chairs, and past CEOs who completed at least one term and have not been recalled”.

There is no legal rationale that for the purpose of finding consensus, it is the PDWG which is called upon to decide on the matter BUT in case of an eventual election for the selection of the PDWG co-chairs the voters should include past PDWG co-chairs, past board of directors chairs and past CEOs.

The authors are recommended to review this aspect of their proposition OR to clarify who the voters should be in these circumstances as well as to advise on the eventual voters’ register to be used for this purpose.

(C) Under 3.3.10 of the proposed policy, the following is observed: “The CEO’s decision shall be final and binding”. I believe this is a typo and the authors intended to refer to the Appeal Committee instead.

Timeline - Implementation can happen within the timelines prescribed by the Consolidated Policy Manual.

 

3.4 Open Microphone Discussion on the Proposal

Darwin Da Costa opened the microphone for further discussions and requested the participants to follow the following guidelines while contributing:-

1. Introduce yourself - Name and affiliation
2. Start by saying if you support or oppose this proposal or want to comment on the proposal
3. Do you see any disadvantages to this proposal?
4. Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
5. What changes could be made to this proposal to make it both effective and acceptable?

The onsite questions were as follows:-

Abdulkarim in his personal capacity had the following questions:-

1. My first question goes to the staff.- Why are we still discussing this policy? Clearly, you have started implementing that policy when we have to select the co-chairs
2. In terms of the proposal, he does not say that he opposes the proposal. There are some good things and some he disagrees with.

Good things - We have to live with reality. We have to make sure that we solve a number of problems. He agrees with a number of aspects of the proposal. But there are some aspects that should be amended or looked into critically. Alain said the Working Group has the final 'say'.Going through the proposal, he does feel that this is so by reading the proposal. It's either the CEO or the board to make the decision without the contribution of the Working Group. He does not believe it allows the group the final decision

Comment 1 - The co-chairs of the member mailing list

The member's mailing list is meant for members and if co-chairs are not members, they should not be subscribed to the Mailing List.

Comment 2 - Primary contact for each proposal is fine in a way. It should be a discussion such that, when I send an email to any co-chair, both co-chairs get the email.

When it’s time for discussing with one co-chair, we talk to the other one. Understanding or having a full idea of the discussion that was going on will be a problem. If you have a primary contact, it is going to lead to confusion.

 

3. Assisting authors with formatting the proposals. He does not think PDWG Chairs should assist authors. Madhvi said that there was a typographical error ‘that the CEO has the final say, that the intention was to say ‘ the Appeal Committee has the final say. The level of formatting is not clear enough. The rewrite should not be part of the role of the co-chair.
4. There was no timeline on what the co-chair shall do after the meeting.
5. Elections have nothing to do with a technical issue. Consensus does not make sense for non-technical issues. The Working group is dysfunctional.
6. Section 3.3.6.1 is going to lead to gagging and not give some people the opportunity to some people to speak
7. Section 3.3.7 - issue with opinions. Opinions do not matter. They have to follow the rules.
8. About appeal - CEO takes the final decision. He does not understand if there is a typo.
9. Recall process - Board appoints every member to the recall process. Why is it the board who should appoint each of those committees?

Vincent Ngundi, PDWG Chair then asked the participant to wind down.

Herve Clement working for Orange speaking in his personal capacity mentioned that:-

Globally he supports this policy. It's because the authors know well the specificities of this AFRINIC community composed of very different communities, opinions etc, which is great. To his sense, it appears that it could solve some problems we have encountered in the past.

He has an experience in policy proposals with RIPE as he proposed the anti-abuse policy and he was happy to have the help of RIPE NCC to write and design the policy he proposed. He requested that his voice as support be considered.

Nii Quaynor mentioned that he supports the policy. He added that there are times when we fail to achieve consensus and the idea is to do our very best to achieve consensus and when we cannot, an oracle should decide for us as we don’t want people to cause gridlock.

This policy gives all the opportunity to the Working Group to arrive at a consensus. In the event we can't, we ask the Lord to decide for us and so if we don’t want the Lord to decide for us, then we’d better get consensus. Something has to force us to get consensus, understand the issues and try to solve them. We should know that if we don’t, someone will decide for us.

Aicha Sahoo from Gambia Gamchix.

She agreed with what Mr Nii just said and mentioned that we need to learn from the failure and continue. We will never get a consensus.

She supports the policy in the sense, especially in section 3.3.6.1 on the discussion of the input. One thing she has noticed on the Mailing List is that sometimes people are making comments and are keeping rephrasing the same argument in different ways when they are making exactly the same point. She has become inactive on the RPD mailing list because of the repetition of issues and never getting to a conclusion. Conflicts of interest exist and she asked whose responsibility it is to filter these out.

A goal is needed and policy addresses that. Any other topic that is branching off that particular policy should be disregarded.

Vincent Ngundi PDWG Chair mentioned that there is a very limited time and addressed those who have objections, He mentioned that everyone had 4 weeks to give their views on the mailing list to allow the authors who are doing this for free to respond to those issues. It is unacceptable to allow someone to take the microphone for one hour. It is not going to happen. He reminded Abdulkarim that he had a long time and that the comments came to his mind today or yesterday. The process needs to be respected and the PDWG Chairs have the responsibility of enforcing it. He invited the online participants to make their comments before handing the microphone to the authors for their responses. PPMs cannot be used to give objections. It is not fair and the process cannot be abused.

Benjamin Mutua online participant mentioned that he opposes this proposal because the idea to give the power to the board over affairs of PDWG is ill-advised. Maybe the community should have more powers on this matter concerning PDWG as the board is not concerned in any way. He is also against the idea that the Board can recall a co-chair. The decision to grant power to the CEO on whether to suspend the posting of privileges, that the CEO can decide and his decision is binding is also ill-advised.

These 2 issues need to be addressed to transfer the power from the Board to the Community.

Jason Okoli online participant mentioned that he opposes this proposal because it does not seems like it's a proposal written for the people. It has been written for CEO and Board members. The community members do not have any stake or decision-making powers in regard to how things are going to be done moving forward. Rough consensus has been ongoing for way too long time and perhaps there could be a way to revamp this proposal so that it will benefit the community we are serving. One hour is not enough to come up with a policy. Go back to the drawing table to revamp the policy.

Eric Mulama, Jomo Kenyatta University, Internet enthusiast online participant mentioned that he totally opposes this proposal.

Section 3.3.6.1 - Moderation of Working Group discussions and sessions. Vague in its totality. Four criteria used to make a decision lead to bias and mistakes because there are no clear parameters to make judgements. The Idea that the co-chair has the sole responsibility for making decisions, and overseeing the whole process using the stipulated criteria is quite a remedy for wrong decisions and making mistakes.

Samuel Uzoechi from Nigeria, an online participant mentioned that he opposes the proposal. Section 3.3.2.1 mentions that there should be restrictions on members in policy making. If the policies are to be guided by these people, the latter should have a say in that policymaking and therefore there should be no restrictions. Community is bottom-up and if we are placing restrictions, it is contrary to what we are preaching.

About disqualification of members on some criteria. Can we just see somebody's name and disqualify that person? He suggests an amendment of hearing people, hearing them talk and then assessing them. All we need are the best people so that they can develop the internet space in Africa.

Alain Aina, policy author intervened and mentioned that 3.2.1 is not part of the proposal. Samuel clarified that he was referring to Section 3.3.2.1.

Binam, an online participant was given the floor but could not be heard.

Zacharia as a consultant and online participant mentioned that he has an issue with section 3.4.5 of the proposal - additional functions for the `board of Directors. Extreme control was awarded to the board of directors. The community is in charge of policy development through PDP. In some cases, such as emergency situations, Board may purpose policies. To be transparent and go through policy proposal procedures and they might be approved or rejected by the community.

Jordi Palet online participant, speaking for himself had several comments as follows:-

a) Asking the recall be now 10 instead of 5. He thinks it's totally against the consensus. Consensus could be a single person. Understand there should be a minimum somehow to avoid abuse of the process but increasing from 5 today to 10 is not good.
b) 3.3.1- he doesn’t really understand the need. Confusing to have a single primary contact
c) 3.3.3.1. On the formatting, too much micromanagement. Too much interference and authors can also refuse.
d) 3.2. Talking about the next phase, he does not see any phases
e) 3.3.6.1- Having criteria makes no sense, is too subjective and is against the consensus definition in RFC 7282. Somebody needs to participate at any time as he could be busy at the time the discussion was happening.
f) Finally this proposal is also missing many key aspects for example
- no definition of consensus, last call, timings, no references to RFCs
- We are still not correcting many aspects that are real problems right now. The abuse-c proposal has expired and it’s under appeal. if the appeal succeeds, it will not be able to be ratified. Elections are working. We are electing a new co-chair. It is more urgent to solve real problems than those we are solving by consensus in the community.

Abdulkarim mentioned that the proposal was submitted on 22 May less than 10 days ago. Vincent Ngundi requested him to send his comments to the Mailing List. The latter agreed to do so.

Alain Aina, the co-author of the proposal mentioned that Jordi said the consensus is working, meaning he supports it. this is good. Nobody is prevented to participate. PDP has the Last Call but we should not have an open-ended process.
Comment on power to board and CEO. Like Dr Nii said. If we can't agree on the minimum, we should move forward and carry forward the decision to another level. Some people have some fiduciary responsibility for keeping this engine running. If They have to intervene, they will intervene. The proposal is clearly following the RIR principles, and the bylaws, so it’s not giving power.
He addressed Abdulkarim saying that if he came from the RIPE NCC meeting, he knows how Working Group works. Everywhere where there are co-chairs, one of them by default leads on one proposal. As we said in the document, they both lead the policies through the process but one must be responsible for it. This does not mean that the co-chair affected is the only one. He encouraged more social discussions before PDP.
in IETF, there are 2 area directors. 1 area director takes care of a certain proposal but the two are collectively responsible for what is happening in the area.

On the topic of recall. The text is clear that the board will appoint a recall committee .. text says one CoE Member Appointed By CoE, one GC member appointed by GC and one community member appointed by the board.
He then requested staff to project the policy proposal.

Vincent Ngundi read online participant Binam’s comment - Name is Paul ..he opposes the proposal. The proposal is giving more power to the board and CEO.

Saul Stein online participant mentioned in Q&A that the appointment should be at the end of the agenda. (a procedure suggestion) otherwise, the new chair will not be aware of what’s being presented.

Oloasu mentioned in Q&A that he feels that the proposal is changing the current PDP (contrary to what author Alain said) as there are some existing procedures in the current PDP that the proposed draft suggests a different approach.

Vincent Ngundi PDWG Chair mentioned that he has skipped some comments that are not relevant.

Mark Elkins online participant mentioned in Q&A that consensus can work but sometimes a vote is required. He thinks Alain should split that proposal into several smaller proposals so that the good ones may pass.

 

Noah co-author of the proposal mentioned that:-

a) Response to section 3.3.2.1
The reason for this section is that Sometimes we need guidelines on how things need to be done .he also reminded Jordi that he has experienced from other RIRs. In fact, the co-chairs engage authors on some specific issues within the period. This is nothing new. it is also happening in other regions and it's doable.

b) He has this sense that we are polarized as a working group. The Working Group participants through a consensus will try to agree/disagree when a set of volunteers come fwd who want to be co-chairs. Last year there was a situation but we managed to find 2 co-chairs. There was back and forth on the mailing list and settled by agreement on Vincent & Darwin. This year, the policy liaisons used the same process and engaged the WG for participants in the process to come forward and they came forward. What the proposal is saying: "at the first step, this is what the WG should do". Because looking at the policy process, this is what we do.

c) There are comments which are general and do not help authors to review their proposal. Two weeks before, contributors can suggest amendments to sections.

d) The essence of the proposal is: do we trust ourselves to find our managers as a Working Group? In case we do not, we need to trust the CEO. If you look at the bylaws, the board calls the PPM. It's their prerogative and it’s a responsibility they cannot run away from. But before we reach the Board or CEO, we should try to agree with each other.

e) he likes what Mark Elkins said: "consensus can work".

f) The specific text in the proposal is needed because of previous experiences.

 

Alain Aina intervened and mentioned that Jordi said there is no definition of consensus. The policy proposal said that we’ll follow the consensus definition in the PDP. He also said in the beginning, that this document is NOT amending the PDP. The PDP itself is totally separate.

Online participant Ish Sookun from La Sentinelle Mauritius has a question - 3.3.5 says that the Board can appoint interim co-chairs if consensus is not reached. This section does not mention that the co-chairs appointed by the Board need to satisfy the criteria in 3.3.3.

Serge Parfait Goma from the Republic of Congo mentioned that it is a heavy responsibility for you to handle the debate. We are debating a policy that seems to be falling from the sky and yet it is 2 yrs old. I'm surprised to hear this proposal is proposed to much micro management. In the past, people were complaining about the lack of guidelines.

He invited the co-chairs to move forward. Long discussions are usually done by French speakers but not English speakers do the same.

He supports this policy because it is a framework that will help us come to decisions in our discussions.

Binam online participant was given the floor but could not be heard due to bad audio.

In response to Abdulkarim’s question to staff, Madhvi Gokool from the AFRINIC secretariat clarified that this policy proposal’s implementation has not started. Any decisions taken so far have been based on the current policy development process that is documented in the Consolidated Policy Manual. In regard to the selection of the co-chairs, an explanation was given on the list, as to why the selection was being driven from the mailing list. For the typo, it's an AFRINIC assessment. More than one staff apart from the Policy liaison team go through the proposal. We read the proposals conjunctively as a team and we also saw in the changelog that the authors updated one section but not the second one. This is the reason we mentioned a typo and the authors may wish to correct that.

The typo is in paragraph 3.3.10.

Alain Aina acknowledged it is completely a typo in regards to what Madhvi just said and that it should mention Appeal Committee instead of CEO.

Noah Maina mentioned that we should trust each other as a community. Abdulkarim mentioned that ‘Typo’ would not change the meaning but when it changes the meaning, it is not the same.

Noah mentioned that for that specific sentence, the good thing about the process is that if a rough consensus is reached, the window period that allows the author to fix any typos, misunderstandings and amendments to the proposal. The authors forgot to remove it and it's good it was raised by the Policy Liaisons and we address it together here.

 

3.5 PWDG Chairs decision

After deliberation, the PDWG Co-chairs made the following decision: “Having considered the discussions in the RPD mailing list and the current PPM, the authors having addressed the concerns raised by the PDWG, the Co-chairs have determined that rough consensus has been reached. The authors will however correct the typo in Section 3.3.10.1 on suspension of posting privileges so that the statement reads as follows “ The Appeal Committee decision shall be final and binding. The draft policy proposal, therefore, moves to the Last Call. The community can engage more on this during the Last Call period.”

 

---

 

4) Proposal #2: Update of PDP ID - AFPUB-2021-GEN-002-DRAFT03

• Proposal URL
• Presentation URL

 

4.1 PDWG Chair Introduction of the DPP and Discussion Flow

Darwin da Costa gave the microphone and floor to the author Jordi Palet for the next 10-15 minutes to present his proposal.

Jordi had a question as to whether he shall respond to the impact assessment as part of his presentation. He was requested to respond after staff have presented the Impact Assessment.

 

4.2 Author’s presentation of DPP

Jordi Palet mentioned that he has slightly updated the proposal and slides from the previous version and will stress the changes:-

1. The proposal was submitted a few years ago and 2 years PDP Chairs made a list of things they believe according to discussions should be corrected in the PDP
2. Conflict resolution was not in the previous version and has now been included according to problems that we have discovered across time passes.
3. Point g) regarding the timing when the policy is under appeal and is expiring and so on. That’s a real problem right now that can create Abuse in the discussion PDP process. Someone tries to appeal before the last call and again after the last call, the proposal can expire before it is ratified even if it reached consensus.

The author is not trying to solve the election of co-chairs and acceptable use policy. The latter is covered by the Code of Conduct. He thinks that most of the time, it’s best to break down problems and address them one by one.

Regarding the Chair selection, there is no problem right now. A policy proposal was proposed years ago but we allowed it to expire. If you don’t have a problem, don’t try to fix it.

Changes from existing PDP:-

1. Ensure it reflects what rough consensus means. That needs to be part of the PDP.
2. Small adjustments
3. In the actual PDP and the previous version of the proposal, expiry was based on a ratification of the proposal by the Board. That creates a Problem because if Appeal Committee is not making a decision on time, the proposal can expire before it’s ratified. By making this small change, the timing is valid until the ratification request is sent by the Chairs to the Board.
4. An appeal will pause the 6-month expiry counter until the Appeal is resolved by the appeal committee.
5. Regarding PPM, no changes have been brought to the previous version
6. Last Call - there is no definition in the PDP as to what the Last call means.
7. Section 3.5 for conflict resolution, he has added a small point that says that appeals and recalls do not modify the timing of PDP. However, the Board should hold ratification in case of an appeal pending resolution at the Appeal Committee. If the latter decides that an appeal succeeds, the Board could have already ratified the policy so we need to fix this.

The author further explained the timings of a proposal with the following chart:- 

 

A proposal can last for several years with many versions. 10 minutes is not enough for PDWG Chairs to take a decision. The majority of registries take some time to take the decision and the Chairs will always take the decision but not just in the meeting itself. The chairs have a few weeks to discuss amongst themselves, they can read the objections and take the decision.

Fixed time for Last Call. A minimum of 2 weeks is mentioned. The current PDP does not say that the period can be extended on the fly. This has happened several times meaning juridical insecurity. One Last Call is over, the Chairs have one more week maximum time to make the final determination depending on newer inputs from the Last Call and then send it to Board.

If a proposal is submitted, less than eight weeks before the PPM then what happens is the PPM happens in the middle of the eight weeks' time so what we are seeing here is any proposal or any new version of a proposal will always At a minimum of eight weeks, two months of discussion. We are not enforcing the decision to be taking in the PPM which doesn't make sense because not always do we have sufficient timing, to have all the questions and answers and people can come back to the mailing list after the PPM and then the chairs have the two weeks for the consensus, two weeks for the last call and one more week for the final consensus depending on the last call inputs.

Finally, if it's a new version, and in this case, it's only new versions of an existing proposal, we don't need to present it to the PPM again because if the chairs decide, and at their discretion if they decide that the changes have addressed the objections from the previous versions-why do we need to wait for a new presentation and take time for the PPM that is always short? This proposal is allowing the chairs to consider if the changes address the previous objections then they can agree if there is consensus already without waiting for the PPM. Then the rest of the process is exactly the same.

In fact, this process is based on a similar proposal that reaches a consensus in LACNIC in May 2018. We have been using this process already for four years in LACNIC and it has been very efficient. So, he is not talking about something theoretical, it is something that has been proven and what he has added is improved the proposal regarding previous experience in LACNIC and experience with what has happened to all of us because of the confinements during COVID-19.

 

Staff Impact Assessment

Brice Abba from AFRINIC Secretariat presented the impact assessment on the proposal.

Staff interpretation and understanding of this policy. This policy proposal modifies some aspects of the policy development process and brings in some changes in the functioning of the working group as below.

• The definition of consensus has been explained to match RFC 7282. It is NOT a classic voting mechanism.
• Participants of the PDWG must be real people(AFRINIC can investigate, taking into consideration the rights of Personal Data protection)
• The possibility to have more PPMs per year to split the workload. That will shorten PPMs.
• For every policy proposal version, AFRINIC must publish an impact analysis in a maximum of four weeks from the submitted date and at least one week before the PPM.
• A PPV expires after six months unless it has been submitted by the chairs for ratification by the board as a policy.
• An appeal pauses the 6-month expiry counter until the Appeal is resolved by the Appeal Committee.
• Any PPV must be discussed on the RPD list a minimum of eight weeks before it is presented in the PPM.
• The chair has a maximum of two weeks to determine whether a rough consensus has been achieved(considering both the list and meetings). Consensus can be determined outside of PPM.
• The chair must publish the minutes of proceedings of the PPM not later than two weeks after the meeting.
• All possible actions during the Last Call have been clarified, and the Chairs will have one week after the end of the Last Call to confirm whether consensus is maintained.
• If consensus is declared, the Chairs will submit the PPV to the AFRINIC Board for ratification. The board of directors can ratify or send the proposals back to the list for further discussions. The latter clarifies the status of the proposal in case
• it is not ratified by the board.
• Conditions in which the AFRINIC Board of Directors can intervene in the Policy Development Working Group discussion are explained
• Amendments are being proposed for Section 3.6 Varying the process.

Regarding the impact on the AFRINIC Secretariat duties,  there is no limit on the proposals that can be put on an AFRINIC PPM agenda. Impact assessments are comprehensively prepared and require the contribution of internal stakeholders. Most of the time,  all departments are involved when we are doing the impact assessment. The timing of these assessments to be prepared one week before the PPM needs to take into consideration the number of proposals on the agenda and the fact that updated versions of the proposal are also submitted by authors closer to the PPM.

 

The legal assessment of the proposal:-

Under paragraph 3.4.2 of the proposal, reference is made as follows – “Once the minimum 8 weeks of discussion in the list and a presentation at the PPM are met, the Chairs have a maximum of 2 weeks to determine whether rough consensus has been achieved”.

Section 11.3 of the bylaws state, inter-alia, that the policy proposal is discussed and agreed upon at a Public Policy Meeting and within the framework of the PDP. Therefore, it is only fair to all those attending and participating in the PPM that any declaration of "rough consensus (or not)" be made during the PPM itself.

Having said that editorial changes can be made during the Last Call before a final declaration is made by the Co-Chairs.

b) Under paragraph 3.4.3 of the proposal, reference is made as follows – “A final discussion of the PPV is initiated by the Working Group Chairs by sending an announcement to the RPD List”. Furthermore, reference is also made as follows – “The purpose of the "Last call" is to provide the community with a brief and final opportunity to comment on the PPV.”

These proposed amendments are IMHO inconsistent with section 11.3 of the bylaws for the reason stated above.

For obvious reasons, Last-Call must be restricted to changes to the policy that are purely editorial and nothing substantive in nature.

Allowing further discussions on the merits of policy proposals during the Last Call is unfair to those participants who attended and participated at AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting, be it in person or virtually. Therefore, allowing further discussions on the merits to be held on the mailing lists post the PPM is too risky as it may allow a consensus (or non-consensus) prevailing during the PPM to be overturned by discussions occurring on the RPD mailing post the PPM.

As regards paragraph 3.4.5 of the proposal, one may question the need for the same since the bylaws already provide for the same in articles 11.4 and 11.5 of the bylaws.

The timeline of implementation can be within 6 months of the Last Call as prescribed by the CPM.

In response to the impact assessment, Jordi Palet, the author of the proposal, mentioned that:-

• the legal inputs are encouraging the community powers which are on top of the PDP. There is a problem with existing bylaws in AFRINIC that does not happen in any other registry which is that the bylaws take over decisions that are in the hands of the community.
• The bylaws are only for members, whilst the community is a wider community. The community is anybody participating in the development of the Internet in Africa, so the rights of the community cannot be restricted because the bylaws say these are bad, which is totally broken.
• In any case, the points from the legal assessment have been addressed already in previous versions, and 11.2 and 11.3 of the bylaws do not limit the time. It is very common in all kinds of legal meetings that the meeting is kept open for as many weeks as needed, so for the PPM, it may not be closed when the actual meeting is over. Then those decisions, even if the physical event is not happening, can be taken.
• Defining the last call cannot be discriminatory because anybody having participated in the physical PPM can still provide input to the mailing list
• The proposal is not saying that new changes unless the editorial must be accepted. What we are talking about here is valid objections.
• The bylaws do not define what means an endorsement, which does not exist in the PDP because we talk about the consensus. So the bylaws are using the wrong wording, and what we are doing with this change in the PDP is precisely authorising the board to take decisions that today they can do according to the bylaws but they cannot do onto the PDP. They are not contradicting it, we are actually helping the bylaws to be right.
• The bylaws are also inconsistent with the intended purpose of the PDP and totally contrary to the other 4 RIRs. That must be amended.
• One part of the amendment is with the PDP giving the board authorisation to do what they are already doing. With an explicit authorisation.
• One question was about section 3.4.2, the reduction of the announcement of the meeting agenda on the RPD from two weeks to one week makes no sense,
• The author responded that actually, it says at least one wing, which is normal so that we can have the agenda several weeks in advance of the meeting.
• The actual PDP knows new versions one week before, so it makes sense to have the same agenda so we can have a new version of the policy proposal by this time.
• The second question regarding 3.4.5 is that there is no necessity for the additional functions of the board. The author responded that new things are not being created but what we already have is being formalised. The community is giving the Board explicit authorisation to do something that they are doing today without our permission as a community.
• In regard to the objection regarding the disagreement with shortening the expiration of the PPV, the author explained that the PPV is based on the timings of the meetings and that 2 meetings are held per year. The expiration has therefore been aligned with the 2 meetings that are held yearly.
• Staff assessment or impact analysis is always done, in AFRINIC and other registries but done very close to the meeting and therefore authors get it late. Thus, authors are disallowed to catch up with possible issues and related changes that can be easy to implement in time for the meeting. Ensuring that impact analysis is received a few weeks after the proposal has been submitted will be more efficient on both sides.

 

4.4 Open Microphone Discussion on the Proposal

The PDWG Chair opened the microphone for comments from participants and requested that they go precisely into the subject so that the author can have time to take notes and to afterwards respond properly.

The feedback from participants was as follows:-

• Nii Quaynor GhanaDotCom member mentioned that the bylaws create the PDP and that needs to be respected. He agrees that the PDP needs a review but the kind of review is being discussed.
• The problem statement has 8 questions, which means that there is no problem to solve.
• Statements of what is not right are solved and not questions.
• We may end up in a situation where we have a solution in search of a problem.
• Problem statements should state what is wrong today.
• Focus on AFRINIC’s issues.

Abdulkarim in his own personal capacity commented that he’s not referring to this proposal’s presentation. He feels that the PDWG Chairs made an awkward decision while Noah mentioned that there is a controversial clause in his proposal and the latter has been pushed to Last Call. He said that time is being wasted and that he can tell what will happen to every proposal today and tomorrow. He indicated that there is clear collusion between a group of people including staff as the latter is able to identify typos and also that the author of the policy said that there is a controversial clause on record, and this same policy went into the last call.

He mentioned that he will support anybody who wishes to challenge in a legal way.

Alain Aina, speaking for himself followed up on Prof Nii Quaynor. He is confused especially since the author mentioned that the proposal has been designed bearing in mind that 3 other parts of the PDP need to be adjusted in other proposals. If we want to have a document on a problem statement that identifies the problem, we should have a document when we agree on the problem and the aspect to be solved, yes. But I am concerned, seriously concerned. It is difficult. The proposal is a copy and paste from RFC 7282 and asked the author if he’s proposing something in rough consensus that is not in RFC 7282. In regard to the formal verification of identity, he asked the author why we do we want to know who is commenting because we want opinions. He reiterated his confusion again.

An online participant, Sylvain mentioned that he likes the DPP solves most of the current problems of the actual PDP and also agrees.

 

The author responded as follows:-

• It is not right to say that the bylaws created the PDP. The latter is an outcome of ICP-2. While bylaws may be absent, the PDP is still needed and it is a community thing and the community is broader than the membership.
• There are problems to solve and it is not right to say that there are no problem statements. For example, we have a proposal that was appealed before and after Last Call; the Co-chair of the existing PDP in his opinion wrongly interpret that Last Call can be variable and that an appeal stops the process. A proposal that has expired before it can be ratified by the Board is a real problem.
• Improvements, even when things are not totally broken are good to have.
• In regard to the RFC, putting a reference to the RFC is helpful as it reminds people of what consensus means. Participants still have queries about what consensus means
• In regard to the identification of people, Alain and Noah have mentioned on the mailing lists that we need to identify people.

 

Prof Nii Quaynor intervened and mentioned that:-

• the proposals do not belong to the author but to the Community and to stop the personalisation
• To Think through what the author said about Bylaws did not create the PDP. If Bylaws were removed, we would not be having this discussion
• The company is run by its Bylaws and not by ICP-2. We believe in the Community. As a founder of the organisation, if he did not believe in the Community, he would not have been part of that.
• There is hierarchy and structure and the latter cannot be turned upside down.
• Community is the driving force in terms of policy discussions.
• this forum had to be created in a formal way and we like to follow our Bylaws, and therefore we must understand that there will be times when we are performing, and this comes from when the structure is created.
• In regard to the problem statement, instead of asking questions, the community is to be told what is wrong.

 

The author responded that:-

• Several points are taken literally from what Cochairs asked the Working Group. The co-chairs created that list of questions or problems as a summary of different proposals working on the change for the PDP, so it is not something that he has made up.
• The PDP was initially created the same in all the regions and the evolution rate was different.
• The intervening needs to point out where in the PDP, it is mentioned that policy proposals are not owned by authors, but he agrees that and has already said so on the mailing list that authors of policy proposals are more like editors.
• Finally, regarding the bylaws, we can have a totally different set of bylaws, we can have a totally different organisation, and the community will still be there.
• The community is on top of the organisation. The organisation is just supporting the work of the community. But there is no way that the bylaws can enforce the community in doing something. What he is resolving in the proposal is actually not contradicting the bylaws, but making sure that the community explicitly empower the organisation, AFRINIC, to do with what it is already doing. But we need to be explicit because otherwise, it is contradictory.

Gregoire, an online participant mentioned that there are certain issues regarding the policy relation that need to be fixed. The meeting should be terminated as we have now because we have to see the big picture about the PDP. Co-chairs have enough time to look at each proposal before we come to it, so he thinks it is known that we can keep it in the PDP as we have today, so that the co-chair can take the decision and then we push it to the mailing list, so we have the mailing list, and the process is followed. There is nothing to change.

The author mentioned that he agrees with the intervenant’s position and that this proposal when presented at LACNIC, the latter was unsure and afterwards, it was working so well. Five ten-fifteen minutes taking a decision is not good. He thinks it creates problems, it is prone to create appeals and appeals and appeals. If the chairs have time to really verify all the comments or inputs of the objections, there will be fewer possibilities of having appeals at every policy proposal.

Vincent Ngundi PDWG Chair mentioned that one of the contentious issues seems to be the Bylaws and requested Ashok, the AFRINIC Legal Counsel to give his views. The Counsel was requested to talk about the Bylaws and how it is reviewed so that the Working Group is aware of the process the Bylaws review goes through as we also hear about inconsistencies in the Bylaws.

Bylaws emanate from the Companies Act and are adapted to suit the specificity of AFRINIC.

Amendment of the bylaws generally, exceptionally will come from the management side, but generally, it comes from the community itself, or members themselves. In terms of the way that the bylaws respond to problems or issues are certain things that have been raised in some quarters then there is the need to either adapt, clarify, or remove certain clauses. There is always somebody who would propose the amendment, generally the internal legal officer deals with most of the amendments that we have.

For example in 2020, he did this through the governance committee, so the matter goes to the governance committee which will look at the rationale behind what it is that you want to suggest, we draw a text, and the text would go for public consultation for a minimum of 30 days. Once we get the feedback from the community and members, we will adapt the text which we would wish to amend and from then on, there is a new draft. I'm not sure if this was back to the community again, but then it goes to the community and once we are settled on the version that we would wish to present as the amended section of the bylaw then it would be submitted to the AGMM for a vote thereon.

To change the bylaws, we need 70% of the vote, before it becomes an amendment probably constituted and accepted by the community and which will go to the next version of the bylaws. This is the way it has been done he thinks since 2013, 2016, and 2020.

On the question of supremacy, the Legal Counsel mentioned that he has not seen anywhere in any text where and even in the bylaws and the Companies Act that where the Community by law supersedes in terms of its regulatory power on the body that gives its mandate.

The board has a very important role to play in the workings of the PDP because the board is the entity to which the responsibility is given to administer the IP addresses which is given to AFRINIC for the community to be used for the development of the Internet in Africa. So he does not feel that there is any rationale in trying to tell which one supersedes the other, because there is only one clear basic objective in IP allocation, to see that there is a fair and proper distribution and allocation of resources to the community.

There is no hierarchy which has been established to say that the PDWG is up there, the board is down here, or some other entity is on the other side. He has not seen any legal basis to say that community is above everything. AFRINIC is created and the bylaws, under which it operates. We are answerable to the community insofar that IP resource management is concerned. Under the ICP document, It concerns only the management of IP resources. This goes to the PDP, but this function of the PDP comes out of the ICP-2 document, which has been signed by AFRINIC with ICANN.

Noah Maina intervened and mentioned simplifying the legal jargon. He mentioned that to his understanding, there is a need to fundamentally separate the bylaws and the CPM because, in principle, the PDP is meant specifically to focus on policy development, and the empowered community are the participants of the PDP who discuss policies that go back to the board to be ratified if there is a consensus. The bylaws already have provisions that invoke the PPM, so we are here because the bylaws have a provision that empowers the board to allow us to come here and openly discuss policy proposals as a community. So we cannot fundamentally try to affect the bylaws through the PDP. There is a need to basically in principle focus the PPM on policy discussions if nothing else. The PDP or the CPM cannot be used to try and amend the bylaws. We need to understand this and this is why he thinks the proposal is somewhat flawed in that sense.

 

The author clarified that:-

• there is some confusion here because the proposal is not changing the bylaws or suggest that. It is the other way around
• He perfectly understands what are the bylaws and it is clear that the community is not subjected to bylaws. If the bylaws are broken, they should be fixed but it is not exactly a problem for the PDP or community.
• the proposal actually authorises things that we have in the bylaws and have never been authorised explicitly by the community so he is not contradicting what has been said by anyone.
• AFRINIC as an organisation is a subset of the community. Not the other way around.
• The board is presenting the membership and is responsible for the resources and nothing else.
• The bylaws talk about the resources, not the modification of the PDP or the other rules that are not related to the resources and however they are in the CPM. This is something written in the by-laws and should be corrected
• That is not something that the community should do and it is the membership that does that.
• The ratification is just a formality to ensure that something is done by the community as part of the PDP doesn’t endanger the membership.
• But the bylaws cannot be a way to control the community.
• If we follow the legal comments of a proposal, including the one the Chairs declared consensus before, it means that we cannot declare consensus if there are any contradictions/ legal comments against the proposal.

 

4.5 PDWG Chairs decision

Mr Vincent Ngundi stated that the PDWG Chairs' decision is as follows:- When considering the discussions in the RPD mailing list and current PPM, and the author has addressed the concerns raised by the PDWG, the co-chairs have determined that a rough consensus has been reached.

The policy proposal is now moved to the Last Call, and the Community is encouraged to further engage during that period. They also ask to assess the practicability and the impact of having both policies, as well as the PDP Update, implemented in section 3 of the Consolidated Policy Manual and to revert back during the last call.

 

---

 

5 Closing remarks

Vincent Ngundi thanked everybody for their time and the PDP Co-chairs look forward to meeting them on the next day at 09h00 UTC.

 

 Next >> Day 2