Details
|
ID: |
AFPUB-2020-GEN-002-DRAFT03 |
Date Submitted: |
22 May 2021 |
|
Author: |
|
Version: |
3.0 |
|
Obsoletes: |
NA |
Amends: |
CPM (3.3) |
Proposal
1. Summary of the problem being addressed by this proposal
The current PDP uses a working group for policy development activities. It does not define specific procedures and operational rules for the working group. This has over time led to interpretation issues in regards to how the working group is administered and how discussions are moderated.
2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem
The proposal addresses the problems by defining clear and explicit Working Group guidelines and procedures.
3. Proposal
The proposal amends the Policy Development Process, section 3.3 of the AFRINIC CPM
| Current | Proposal |
|---|---|
|
3.3 The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) discusses the proposals. Anyone may participate via the Internet or in person. PDWG work is carried out through the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list (rpd@afrinic.net) and the bi-annual AFRINIC Public Policy Meetings (PPM). Any person, participating either in person or remotely, is considered to be part of the Policy Development Working Group. The Policy Development Working Group has two Chairs to perform its administrative functions. The PDWG Chairs are chosen by the AFRINIC community during the Public Policy Meeting and serve staggered two-year terms. The term ends during the first Public Policy Meeting corresponding to the end of the term for which they were appointed. A term may begin or end no sooner than the first day of the Public Policy Meeting and no later than the last day of the Public Policy Meeting as determined by the mutual agreement of the current Chair and the new Chair. If the Working Group Chair is unable to serve his or her full term, the Working Group may select a replacement to serve the remainder of the term. If the Working Group Chairs are unable to attend the Public Policy Meeting, the Working Group shall nominate a Chair for the session. Anyone present at the meeting, whether in person or by remote participation, may participate in the selection process for a temporary Chair. |
3.3 IntroductionThe Policy Development working group (PDWG) provides an open public forum to discuss Internet number resources policies and related topics of interest to AFRINIC and the Internet community in the AFRINIC service region. PDWG sessions are held at AFRINIC Public policy meetings. Between meetings, discussions continue through the Resource Policy discussions mailing list. The PDWG is open to all interested individuals. This document serves as guidelines on how the working group shall operate. It defines clear roles and responsibilities for the PDWG co-chairs and clear procedures for the working group’s administration.
3.3.1 Co-chairs Two PDWG co-chairs primarily administer the Policy Development, working group. The PDWG co-chairs perform a vital role in managing the working group. The effectiveness of the PDWG is dependent on the active participation of the co-chairs. PDWG co-chairs undertake their roles on a volunteer basis. The co-chairs coordinate the activities of the policy development’s working group and are expected to attend all AFRINIC Public Policy Meetings. They must remain subscribed to the AFRINIC Policy Discussion mailing list for the duration of their term and must also be subscribed to the AFRINIC members-discuss mailing list during their term. For each policy proposal, one co-chair must be assigned as the primary contact; both co-chairs however shall actively participate in the consensus-building. The leading co-chair for the proposal as described above shall guide the policy proposal through the different phases of the PDP.
3.3.2 Responsibilities of PDWG co-chairs The co-chairs’ responsibility encompasses at least the following:
The co-chairs have the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the working group achieves forward progress. The co-chairs are also responsible to ensure that the working group operates in an open and fair manner.
The co-chairs should attempt to ensure that the discussions on the list are relevant and that they converge to consensus agreements. The co-chairs should make sure that discussions on the list are summarized and that the outcome is well documented to avoid repetition and other abuses.
The responsibilities of the co-chairs are listed below: 3.3.2.1 Before an AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting a) Assist authors with formatting proposal 3.3.2.2. During a Public Policy Meeting a) Chair the Public Policy meeting and moderate the discussions. 3.3.2.3. After a Public Policy Meeting a) Send a report of the Public Policy Meeting to the community and policy discussion mailing lists including policy proposal discussion outcomes and open action items.
3.3.3. Appointment of PDWG Co-chairs The working group appoints two co-chairs for a two-year term. Co-chairs’ appointments occur in alternate years for each seat (seat1 and seat2). The working group makes decisions by consensus and shall also appoint co-chairs by consensus. Elections should be used as a last resort solution. The appointment for each seat follows the following process: At least 60 days before the Public Policy Meeting, AFRINIC staff sends a call for nominations to the policy development mailing list. The call will contain:
Any natural person residing in a country from the AFRINIC service region is allowed to volunteer. Volunteers make themselves known by introducing themselves (short biography and motivation) as a candidate on the working group mailing list. Candidates for the co-chair’s position should be known as active participants on the working group mailing list with good experience with the AFRINIC policy development process and must have attended at least two (2) AFRINIC Public Policy Meetings of which one must be in person, during the last 3 years. If at least one nomination is received by the closing date, the appointment process starts. The appointment must be held at the upcoming Public Policy Meeting as the first item on the agenda. Those present at the session, either in person or remotely, will determine by consensus among the candidates who shall take the available position. The remaining chair will determine whether consensus has been reached. If the working group finds itself without a co-chair, the chair of the AFRINIC Board of Directors will lead the consensus process. If only one candidate is being evaluated, the lack of consensus must declare the seat vacant. The board of directors shall appoint an interim co-chair within two weeks after the PPM. The Interim co-chair will act up to the appointment of the new co-chair. 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. Those who served in multiple positions shall have one vote. Votes and counting shall be conducted using a ranked preferential voting method otherwise known as IRV. The winner of the secret ballot will become the new co-chair. In the unlikely event that after all the rounds of counting of the vote, there is a tie between the two (2) most ranked candidates, they shall be asked to select one among them to serve the term by consensus. The seat shall be declared vacant in case of failure of agreement between the last two. If the secret ballot cannot be held, the seat is declared vacant. The board of directors shall appoint interim co-chairs(s). The Interim co-chair(s) will act up to the appointment of the new co-chair(s). The exit of the co-chair includes a handover period and an expectation that the sitting chair follows proposals, which have already reached consensus, to the completion of their PDP cycle.
3.3.4. Recalling a co-chair If the co-chair does not attend two consecutive AFRINIC Public Policy Meetings without reasons or has been publicly reported by the other co-chair as no longer attending to the working group’s affairs without reasons, the co-chair will be removed from its role. Anyone may request the recall of a working group co-chair at any time, upon a written request with justification to the AFRINIC Board of Directors. The request must be supported by at least ten (10) other persons. The AFRINIC Board of Directors shall appoint a recall committee, excluding the persons requesting the recall and the co-chair. The recall committee shall investigate the circumstances of the request for the recall and determine the outcome not more than 4 weeks after the recall is recorded. The recall committee report shall be published on the working group mailing list. The recall committee decision shall be final and binding. Whenever a co-chair is removed from its role and recalled, the remaining co-chair will assume the chairing role of the working group until the appointment of a new co-chair(s). If both co-chairs are recalled, the chair of the AFRINIC board of directors shall as a matter of urgency lead the appointment by the working group of an interim co-chair(s) via the mailing list or at the Public Policy meeting. If no consensus can be reached, the Board of directors shall appoint interim co-chairs(s) for the working group within two weeks after the ascertainment of the lack of consensus
3.3.5. Resignation of co-chair If a co-chair resigns, the remaining co-chair will assume the chairing role of the working group until the appointment of a new co-chair(s). If both co-chairs resign, the chair of the AFRINIC board of directors shall as a matter of urgency lead the appointment by the working group of an interim co-chair(s) via the mailing list or at the Public Policy meeting. If no consensus can be reached, the Board of directors shall appoint interim Co-chairs(s) for the working group. The Interim chair will act up to the appointment of the new co-chair(s).
3.3.6 Operations working group (PDWG) 3.3.6.1 Moderation of working group discussions and sessions The challenge of managing the policy development working group sessions is to balance the need for open and fair consideration of the issues against the need to make forward progress. The working group, as a whole, has the final responsibility for striking this balance. The working group co-chairs have the responsibility for overseeing the process. To facilitate making forward progress, the working group co-chairs may wish to decide to reject or defer the input from an individual, based upon the following criteria: Old: The input pertains to a topic that already has been resolved and is redundant with information previously available; Minor: The input is new and pertains to a topic that has already been resolved, but it is felt to be of minor import to the existing decision; Timing: The input pertains to a topic that the working group has not yet opened for discussion; Scope: The input is outside the scope of the discussions or of the working group
3.3.7 Individual Behaviors Occasionally one or more individuals may engage in behaviour on a mailing list that, in the opinion of the working group co-chairs, is disruptive to the working group’s progress or goes against applicable Codes of Conduct. Unless the disruptive behaviour is severe enough that it must be stopped immediately, the co-chairs should attempt to discourage the disruptive behaviour by communicating directly with the offending individual. If the behaviour persists, the co-chairs should send at least one public warning on the mailing list. The warning should clearly expose what is being cautioned on the individual and the basis of co-chairs judgment. As last resort, and typically after one or more explicit warnings, and if the behaviour persists, the working group co-chairs may suspend the mailing list posting privileges of the disruptive individual for a period of not more than 30 days. The application of this restriction must be gradual. If the individual resumes with the same behaviour or worse, the restriction period may increase. Even while posting privileges are suspended, the individual must not be prevented from receiving messages posted to the list. Other Mailing list control solutions may be considered. The working group must have adopted these solutions. Like all other working group’s co-chairs' decisions, any suspension of posting privileges is subject to appeal.
3.3.8 Public Policy Meeting A Public Policy Meeting (PPM) is a meeting open to the community wherein proposals for policies are discussed within the framework of the Policy Development Process (PDP). The AFRINIC Board of Directors calls PPMs in accordance with section 11.2 of the Bylaws. If one co-chair can’t participate in a Public Policy Meeting, the second co-chair shall chair the meeting. If both co-chairs can’t participate in a meeting, the working group shall appoint one (1) person temporarily to lead the session. If the working group cannot appoint a temporary chair, the board of directors shall appoint a temporary chair. If the board fails to appoint a temporary chair, the meeting shall be adjourned. The temporary chair appointed above shall lead the discussions according to the agenda, but can’t determine consensus on policy proposals. He will provide meeting minutes to the mailing list and allow the co-chairs to take over. While open discussion and contribution are essential to working Group success, co-chairs are responsible for ensuring forward progress. When acceptable to the working group, co-chairs may call for restricted participation (but not restricted attendance!) at Public Policy meetings for the purpose of achieving progress. The working group co-chairs then have the responsibility to refuse to grant the floor to any individual who is unprepared or otherwise covering inappropriate material, or who, in the opinion of the co-chairs, is disrupting the working group process.
3.3.9 Consensus The working group makes decisions by consensus as defined in the PDP
3.3.10 Appeals 3.3.10.1 Suspension of posting privileges Anyone whose privileges of posting to the mailing list have been suspended by the working group co-chairs may file an appeal against the decision to the chair of the AFRINIC board of directors. The chair will evaluate the circumstances, hear the co-chairs and complainer and decide. The chair’s decision shall be final and binding. 3.3.10.2 Co-chairs appointment A person who disagrees with the actions taken by a co-chair regarding the appointment process shall follow the conflict resolution process as defined in the PDP. Actions taken by the board of directors regarding the appointment process are final and binding
|
4. Acknowledgement
The author would like to acknowledge that some text and procedures in this document have been adapted from RFC2418 and from the working group’s practices of other RIRs.
Revision History
Revision History
| Date | Details |
| 22 May 2021 |
Version 3: AFPUB-2020-GEN-001-DRAFT03 - Make board appoint interim co-chair(s) instead of board chair |
| 30 July 2020 |
Version 2: AFPUB-2020-GEN-001-DRAFT02
|
|
22 July 2020 |
Version 1: AFPUB-2020-GEN-001-DRAFT01 Initial draft posted to rpd formatted |
AFRINIC Policy Impact Assessment
AFRINIC Staff Assessment
Date of Assessment: 28 Oct 2021
1.0) Staff Interpretation & Understanding of the proposal
This policy proposal brings in some changes to the functioning of the Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) as follows:-
- PDWG Co-chairs responsibilities
- Appointment of PDWG co-chairs
- Clarifies what needs to happen if one or both co-chairs are recalled
- Clarifies how to proceed should a co-chair resign
- Operations of the PDWG such as the moderation of the PDWG discussions and sessions, individual behaviours and public policy meetings
- Appeals - Someone whose posting privileges have been suspended can appeal against these decisions
- The Board appoints interim co-chairs within a prescribed timeline
- 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).
2.0) AFRINIC Staff Clarification Requests
Under paragraph 3.3.3 of the proposed policy (7th paragraph), reference is made to “active participants”.
The term “active participants” is no doubt ambiguous and any meaning to be attributed thereto will also be subjective. A proper definition of the term is thus recommended.
3.0) Staff Comments On Areas of Impact
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 - Online voting platform will be required to host the online secret ballot. The voting register is defined in the proposal and consist 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 platforms will be subject to identity verification.
Mailing Lists - PDWG Chairs will be subscribed to members-discuss mailing lists as observers.
Active participants to be defined.
Legal Assessment
In form, the legal observations and remarks are as follows:
- Ex-facie the policy proposal, like style, it appears that the authors intend to revoke and substitute the entire provisions of the existing section 3.3 of the Consolidated Policy Manual with the contents of the proposal at hand. If so, the authors must state so clearly.
- The authors must also be clear as to whether the proposal should be considered as a policy proposal for the purposes of section 11.3 of the AFRINIC’s bylaws which, for all intents and purposes, ought to be a proposal with respect to the management of IP number resources, or whether it should simply be executed as a guideline. This distinction is crucial because (i) a guideline is a directory in nature whereas a policy proposal that is agreed within the PDP framework and ratified by the board of directors is mandatory in nature which may give ground for the recall of the PDWG co-chairs.
- The attention of the PDWG is also drawn to the fact that an increase in the number of recall petitions is not and cannot be deemed to be in the general interests of the AFRINIC’s Regional Internet Community. On the contrary, such an increase in the number of recall petitions will only create more instability, further divide the current regional Internet community, thus defeating the spirits of the consensus base.
In substance, the legal observations are as follows:
(a) The first paragraph of the proposed policy reads as follows – “The Policy Development working group (PDWG) provides an open public forum to discuss Internet number resources policies and related topics of interest to AFRINIC and the Internet community in the AFRINIC service region”.
At the outset, it should be recalled that the PDP is an emanation of section 11.3 of the AFRINIC bylaws which provides that:
“For the purpose of subsection 11.2 a Public Policy Meeting means a meeting open to the community wherein proposals for policies for a proper and responsible usage and Management of Internet number resources are discussed and agreed within the framework of the Policy Development Process (PDP) defined by the Regional Internet community and ratified by the Board.”
As such, the mandate of the PDWG is limited to the proposition and discussion of policies pertaining to IP number resources management. Any other discussion, albeit related to AFRINIC is thus inadmissible.
(b) Under paragraph 3.3.1 of the proposed policy, reference is made as follows – “The co-chairs coordinate the activities of the policy development’s working group and are expected to attend all AFRINIC Public Policy Meetings.”
Given the nature of the functions of the PDWG’s co-chairs, it is recommended that the presence of the PDWG’s co-chairs at the Public Policy Meeting ought to be mandatory unless the latter finds himself (or themselves) in a real predicament from ensuring his/her/their respective attendance. In other words, the attendance of the PDWG’s co-chairs cannot be based upon a mere expectation.
(c) Under paragraph 3.3.2.1 of the proposed policy, more precisely sub-paragraph (f) thereof, reference is made to “submission of an updated version of the proposal on the mailing list”.
The attention of both the authors and the PDWG is drawn to the fact that a policy proposal is a proposal submitted by an author(s) for discussion within the PDP framework. As such, the same cannot be termed as a draft or version.
Besides, it is not practical for an author to adduce additional version(s) of his/her proposal whilst the policy remains under discussion. Instead, s/he should simply withdraw the proposal and may submit a fresh proposal anew.
(d) Under paragraph 3.3.3 of the proposed policy (2nd paragraph), reference is made to ‘consensus’ whereas reference is also made to ‘elections’ albeit as an exceptional provision.
Whilst this provision may be ambitious, yet the author is recommended to be realistic in their proposition, more so that a proposed amendment should always reflect the environment in which the PDWG operates as well as the external factors impacting the working group.
(e) 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 relevant to recall that section 11.3 of the bylaws provides as follows:
“For the purpose of subsection 11.2 a Public Policy Meeting means a meeting open to the community wherein proposals for policies for a proper and responsible usage and Management of Internet number resources are discussed and agreed within the framework of the Policy Development Process (PDP) defined by the Regional Internet community and ratified by the Board.”
However, it is also acknowledged that notwithstanding the provisions of section 11.3 of the bylaws, i.e. for AFRINIC to have a Regional Internet community, it is an acceptable practice at AFRINIC to allow persons not necessarily residing with the AFRINIC service region to subscribe and participate in its PDWG. Hence, refraining persons not residing in the AFRINIC service region from being appointed as PDWG’s co-chairs is not only unfair but also constitutes a breach of the established principles of democracy.
If the intention of the authors is that the PDWG should be owned and controlled by persons residing within the AFRINIC service region, then the mischief should be addressed at the source, thus giving full effect to the provision of section 11.3 of the bylaws so that only person residing within the AFRINIC service region be entitled to subscribe and participate in the PDWG and all others may appear as observers only.
(f) Under paragraph 3.3.4 of the proposed policy, provision is made to the possibility of recalling a sitting PDWG’s co-chairs. However, no guidance is provided on the probable grounds deemed acceptable for such recall. On this note, the authors are advised to ensure that there is no overlapping of the functions of the Appeal Committee and the Recall Committee.
(g) Under 3.3.10 of the proposed policy, reference is made for an appeal to be heard by the chairperson of the AFRINIC board of directors. The question arising is whether the views of the AFRINIC board of directors has been sought, or at least been consulted, on that aspect for its chairperson to assume such additional responsibility.
From a strict legal and governance perspective, the involvement of the chairperson of the board of directors may be improper in these circumstances, more so that the Board’s involvement is limited to (i) the calling of the PPM, (ii) consider the ratification of a policy that has reached consensus, and (iii) intervene in exceptional circumstances to unblock a deadlock within the PDP framework.
Financial Assessment
Elections or Voting Platform is outsourced and therefore budget needs to be planned accordingly.
4.0) Implementation
Timeline - Implementation can happen within the timelines prescribed by the Consolidated Policy Manual.