Update of PDP (Draft-1) Archived

1. Summary of the problem being addressed by this proposal

The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) discusses the policy proposals and anyone may participate either in the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list (RPD) and the bi-annual Public Policy Meetings (PPM).

However, there are several problems, accurate definitions, and open questions that have been detected across the years:

1. The consensus definition is not clear.

2. Who constitutes the PDWG? Should participation be restricted to identified people?

3. The PDP needs to work explicitly and without doubts of compliance in situations such as the Covid “new normal”.

4. It is the discussion for the consensus (and possible appeals) only the one in the meeting, or it should explicitly be inclusive (allowing people that can’t be in meetings) stating that the mailings list is part of it.

5. Shall the impact analysis be mandatory and what is the timing for that?

6. The Last-Call is not well defined.

7. Should the proposals expire if not updated and how often?

8. Is the actual PDP timing good enough or should be improved?

9. Can other online sessions be organized in addition to the formal Public Policy Meetings?

10. Shall the functions of the board on the PDP matters be better described?

11. Should the moderation of the discussions process be explicit?

2. Summary of how this proposal addresses the problem

This proposal seeks to resolve all the issues stated above, and it has been designed having in mind that there are three other parts of the PDP that need to be adjusted in other proposals, in order to simplify reaching consensus in each part and in such a way that each part can be adopted independently in case of lack of consensus in the others:

1. PDWG Chairs eligibility, selections, and roles. How does the PDWG continue the work in case of absence/resignation/recall of one or both chairs?

2. Conflict resolution.

3. AUP (Acceptable Usage Policy) for the mailing list, do we need it or the AFRINIC CoC is sufficient and it is accepted by the community and who and how enforces it?

In some RIRs, there is a mention in guidelines (not the PDP itself) about moderation of discussion process, such as if a topic under discussion is old or out of timing, if an objection is minor or major, etc. However, the reality is that this is not being used in any RIR, and we don’t see that this may improve the debates in the PDWG, and in fact, will overcomplicate the management and create unnecessary micro-management of the chairs. As a consequence, this proposal is not considering that the point “k” above, is a real problem that needs to be solved.

3. Proposal

Amending 3.0 of the CPM, as follows:

Current	Proposed
None	3.1.1 Definition of “Rough Consensus” Achieving “rough consensus” does not mean that proposals are voted for and against, nor that the number of “yes's”, “no's” and “abstentions” – or even participants – are counted, but that the proposal has been discussed not only by its author(s) but also by other members of the community, regardless of their number, and that, after a period of discussion, all critical technical objections have been resolved. In general, this might coincide with a majority of members of the community in favor of the proposal, and with those who are against the proposal basing their objections on technical reasons as opposed to “subjective” reasons. In other words, low participation or participants who disagree for reasons that are not openly explained should not be considered a lack of consensus. Objections should not be measured by their number, but instead by their nature and quality within the context of a given proposal. For example, a member of the community whose opinion is against a proposal might receive many “emails” of support, yet the Chairs might consider that the opinion has already been addressed and technically refuted during the debate; in this case, the Chairs would ignore those expressions of support against the proposal. For information purposes, the definition of “consensus” used by the RIRs and the IETF is actually that of “rough consensus”, which allows better clarifying the goal in this context, given that “consensus” (Latin for agreement) might be interpreted as “agreed by al”’ (unanimity). More specifically, RFC7282, explains that “Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated.” Consequently, the use of “consensus” in the PDP, must be interpreted as “rough consensus”.
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.	3.3 The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) is a global community open forum to discuss Internet Number Resources policies and related topics applicable in the AFRINIC service region. Any real person may participate, either in person or using Internet (email, videoconferencing, etc.) and that means it is considered part of the PDWG. In case there is a doubt on the real existence of any participant, other participants can request to AFRINIC for formal verification, taking into consideration the rights of Personal Data Protection. Typically, most of the work is carried out through the Resource Policy Discussion (RPD) mailing list (rpd@afrinic.net) and the AFRINIC Public Policy Meetings (PPM). Normally, 2 PPM will be held per calendar year, which might be online, in-person, or hybrid. If needed, more PPM could be held online only, in order to split the workload across the year, having shorter PPM sessions, facilitating the PDWG to concentrate on a smaller number of proposals. Other online sessions could be carried out in order to gather community inputs or just as informative sessions, however, those don’t count towards the consensus determination.
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.	(Not changed by this proposal – it is better organized as part of the chairs eligibility/selection/roles proposal)
3.4.1 Draft Policy Proposal During the development of a policy, draft versions of the document are made available for review and comment by publishing them on the AFRINIC website and posting them to the rpd@afrinic.net mailing list. Each draft policy is assigned a unique identifier by AFRINIC and the AFRINIC website shall also contain the version history and the status of all proposals. The draft policy shall be available for review for at least four weeks before the next Public Policy Meeting. The author(s) shall make the necessary changes to the draft policy according to the feedback received. The Working Group Chair(s) may request AFRINIC to provide an analysis (technical, financial, legal, or other), of the impact of the draft policy proposal. A draft policy expires after one calendar year unless it is approved by the AFRINIC Board of Directors as a policy. The timeout period is restarted when the draft policy is replaced by a more recent version of the proposal. A draft policy can be withdrawn by the author(s) by sending a notification to the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list.	3.4.1 Draft Policy Proposal and Discussion Timing During the development of a policy, draft versions of the document are made available for discussion by publishing them on the AFRINIC website and posting them to the rpd@afrinic.net list. Each Draft Policy Proposal (DPP) is assigned a unique identifier by AFRINIC and the AFRINIC website must also contain the version history and the status of all proposals. For every DPP/version, AFRINIC must publish an Impact Analysis (IA) in a maximum of 4 weeks (from the submitted date) and at least 1 week before the PPM. When a complete IA is not possible within that time frame, it should be duly justified in the RPD list and at least a draft version must be available. The DPP must be available for discussion for at least 2 weeks before the next PPM. The author(s) must make the necessary changes to the DPP according to the feedback received. A DPP expires after 6 months unless it is ratified by the AFRINIC Board of Directors as a policy. The timeout period is restarted when the DPP is replaced by a new version. A DPP can be withdrawn by the author(s) by sending a notification to the RPD List. Expired DPPs may be updated at a later stage, and will not be considered a new proposal, so they will keep the previous ID. Any DPP must be discussed on the RPD List a minimum of 8 weeks and maximum, the period of time required so it can be presented in the PPM. Consensus for a DPP can be determined only once it has been presented and discussed in the PPM. However, if a DPP has been already presented in a PPM, under the request of the author(s), the Chairs could decide that a new presentation (at a PPM) is not needed if consensus could already be achieved in the RPD List. However, the 8 weeks discussion period in the RPD List is still required.
3.4.2 Public Policy Meeting The draft policy is placed on the agenda of an open public policy meeting. The agenda of the meeting shall be announced on the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list at least two weeks prior to the meeting. No change can be made to a draft policy within one week of the meeting. This is so that a stable version of the draft policy can be considered at the meeting. The Chair(s) determine(s) whether rough consensus has been achieved during the Public Policy Meeting. The Chair(s) shall publish the minutes of proceedings of the Public Policy Meeting not later than three weeks after the meeting.	3.4.2 Public Policy Meeting and Consensus Determination Any new DPP must be placed on the agenda of a PPM. The agenda of the meeting must be announced on the RPD List at least 1 week prior to the meeting. No change can be made to a DPP within 1 week of the meeting. This is so that a stable version of the DPP can be considered at the meeting. Once the minimum 8 weeks of discussion in the list and a presentation at the PPM (for never presented DPPs) are met, the Chairs have a maximum of 2 weeks to determine whether rough consensus has been achieved (considering both list and meeting). The Chairs must publish the minutes of proceedings of the PPM not later than 2 weeks after the meeting. For every DPP/version that doesn't reach consensus, the Chairs should clearly state the reasons, in order for the authors to be able to work in an improved version.
3.4.3 Last Call A final review of the draft policy is initiated by the Working Group Chair(s) by sending an announcement to the Resource Policy Discussion mailing list. The Last Call period shall be at least two weeks. The Working Group Chair(s) shall evaluate the feedback received during the Public Policy Meeting during this period and decide whether consensus has been achieved.	3.4.3 Last-Call A final discussion of the DPP is initiated by the Working Group Chairs by sending an announcement to the RPD List. The Last-Call period must be 2 weeks. Within 1 week after the end of the Last Call, the Working Group Chairs must confirm whether consensus is maintained. The purpose of the Last call is to provide the community with a brief and final opportunity to comment on the DPP, especially those who didn’t earlier. Consequently, during this period pure editorial comments may be submitted and, exceptionally, objections if any aspect is discovered that was not considered in the discussion prior to determining consensus. Any new objections must also be substantiated and must therefore not be based on opinions lacking a technical justification. In case of editorial modifications, a new version must be published and the last-call period restarted.
3.4.4 Approval The Working Group Chair(s) shall recommend the draft policy to the AFRINIC Board of Directors for approval if it has the consensus of the Policy Development Working Group. The recommendation shall include a report of the discussions of the draft policy and feedback from the Last Call. The draft policy shall be ratified by the AFRINIC Board of Directors.	3.4.4 Approval If consensus is declared, the Working Group Chairs will submit the DPP to the AFRINIC Board of Directors for ratification, including a short report of the discussions. The Board, as soon as possible after the report submission, must either: * Ratify the proposal analyzing with the staff the implementation details and timing, or * Return the proposal to the PDWG for further discussion justifying the reasons and possible alternatives, so the authors can decide if they want to submit an updated version. The Board must communicate the decision to the PDWG.
	3.4.8 Additional Functions of the AFRINIC Board of Directors The community is the only one responsible for the Policy Development, by means of the PDP. However, in exceptional emergency situations, duly justified, the Board may define temporary policy changes, which will only be valid until the next PPM. Those changes must be immediately introduced as a DPP. Attending to the exceptionality, the “Varying the Process” section could be used in order to try to speed up the consensus. In the event that such DPP doesn’t reach a consensus, it will not be further enforced or implemented, however, any actions taken in terms of the policy up to the non-consensus determination will remain valid.

4. References

A similar proposal reached consensus in LACNIC (May 2018), has been implemented and has been used already for several years. This version offers improved details considering the previous experience and the Covid-19 situation and other improvements introduced in the latest years to the LACNIC PDP.

Revision History

Date	Details
10 Oct 2021	Version 1: AFPUB-2021-GEN-002-DRAFT01 * Initial Draft Posted to rpd

AFRINIC Staff Assessment

Date of Assessment: 27 October 2021

1.0) Staff Interpretation & Understanding of the proposal

This policy proposal modifies some aspects of the Policy Development Process (PDP) and brings in some changes to the functioning of the Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) as follows:

1. The definition of rough consensus has been explained to match the one defined in the RFC7282 and should not be considered a classic voting mechanism.

2. Participants of the PDWG must be real people, in case of any doubt, AFRINIC can be requested to investigate, taking into consideration the rights of Personal Data Protection.

3. 2 PPM will be held per year and many short ones could also happen online only, in order to split the workload across the year.

4. For every DPP/version, AFRINIC must publish an Impact Analysis (IA) in a maximum of 4 weeks (from the submitted date) and at least 1 week before the PPM.

5. A DPP expires after 6 months unless it is ratified by the AFRINIC Board of Directors

6. Any DPP must be discussed on the RPD List a minimum of 8 weeks before it is presented in the PPM.

7. The Chairs have a maximum of 2 weeks to determine whether rough consensus has been achieved (considering both list and meeting).

8. The Chairs must publish the minutes of proceedings of the PPM not later than 2 weeks after the meeting.

9. All possible actions during the Last Call have been clarified, and the Chairs have 1 week after the end of the Last Call, to confirm whether consensus is maintained.

10. If consensus is declared, the Chairs will submit the DPP to the AFRINIC BoD for ratification. The Board of Directors can ratify or send the proposal back to the list for further discussion. The latter clarifies the status of the proposal in case it is not ratified by the AFRINIC Board.

11. Conditions in which the AFRINIC Board of Directors can intervene in the Policy Development Working Group discussion are explained.

2.0) Staff Comments On Areas of Impact

Legal Assessment

(a) Under paragraph 3.3 of the proposed policy, reference is made as follows – “The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) is a global community open forum to discuss Internet Number Resources policies and related topics applicable in the AFRINIC service region”.

There are 2 issues arising from the above statement:

(i) Whether the AFRINIC’s community is a global community, or it is restricted to those residing within its service region. Attention is hereby drawn to section 11.3 of the AFRINIC’s bylaws which provides as follows:

“11.3) 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.”

(ii) Whether, having regard to the provisions of section 11.3 of the AFRINIC’s bylaws, the mandate of the AFRINIC’s Internet community (the RPD in this context) is widened enough so that it may “discuss topics applicable in the AFRINIC service region” or that any discussion must be restricted to issues pertaining to the management IP number resources only so as to remain consistent with the ambit of section 11.3 of the bylaws.

(b) Under paragraph 3.4.1 of the proposal, reference is made to “draft versions”.

Whilst no doubt the community has endorsed the practice of an author submitted draft proposals for discussion, yet it is recommended that this practice be reviewed in order to cure the continued procedural irregularity in order to remain consistent with section 11.3 of the bylaws.

Section 11.3 of the bylaws clearly and unambiguously refers to “proposals for policies” and nowhere reference is made to the submission of “draft proposal”. Besides, naming the proposal as “draft” in itself is an admission/indication that the relevant policy in question is still a work-in-progress so that it is not ready to be submitted for discussion purposes.

Having said that there is nothing that prevents an author from sharing a draft of his proposal to the community for the purpose of brainstorming. However, once the consultation with the PDWG is over, the author is bound to submit his final version of his proposal for the purpose of section 11.3 of the bylaws.

(c) Still under paragraph 3.4.1 of the proposal, reference is made to “For every DPP/version, AFRINIC must publish an Impact Analysis (IA) in a maximum of 4 weeks (from the submitted date) and at least 1 week before the PPM”. As indicated above, there is no legal soundness for an author to submit “draft” proposals for discussion for the purposes of a Public Policy Meeting envisaged in sections 11.2 and 11.3 of the bylaws. Consequently, there is no logic for AFRINIC to publish an Impact Analysis with respect to each and every version of the said draft proposal. An Impact Analysis may be provided on the final version being submitted by the author.

(d) Under paragraph 3.4.1 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”.

It is observed that in recent years the PDWG has somehow diverted from the spirits of the provisions of the AFRINIC’s bylaws more precisely, sections 11.2 and 11.3 thereof. In fact, section 11.3 of the bylaws clearly state that proposals for policies are discussed and agreed upon during the Public Policy Meeting. Therefore, a declaration of consensus (or not) must be made during the PPM itself. The practice, if any, of declaring consensus outside the scope ambit of the PPM is simply not consistent with section 11.3 of the bylaws.

(e) Under paragraph 3.4.3 of the proposal, reference is made as follows – “A final discussion of the DPP 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 DPP, especially those who didn’t earlier.”

These amendments are clearly inconsistent with section 11.3 of the bylaws for the reason stated above. In fact, the Last Call, for all intents and purposes, ought to be restricted to changes to the policy that are purely editorial and non-substantial in nature.

Allowing further discussions on the merits of policy proposal during the Last-Call is not only irrational but unfair to those participants who attended and participated at AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting, be it in person or virtually. Hence, allowing further discussions on the merits to be held on the mailing lists post the PPM may only allow a consensus (or non-consensus) prevailing during the PPM to be overturned by discussions occurring on the RPD mailing post the PPM, but AFRINIC may also face the difficulty of encouraging participants from attending its Public Policy Meeting for the purpose of section 11.2 of the bylaws. This cannot happen.

(f) As regard paragraph 3.4.8 of the proposal, it is clear that the proposal, as styled, is inconsistent with sections 11.3, 11.4 and 11.5 of the bylaws. It is apposite to recall that section 11.4 of the bylaws already caters for the adoption of policies regarding the management of internet number resources where it considers that the same is necessary and urgent; and section 11.5 of the bylaws provides for the endorsement (i.e. approval) of the adopted policy by the community. Therefore, the question of the board of directors introducing its own adopted policy to the community by way of a DPP makes no sense. In practice, and if section 11.4 is eventually triggered, the Chairperson of the board of directors would be required to submit a brief to the community at the next PPM substantiating the actions taken by the board of directors so that the said action may be endorsed by the community.

For the reasons stated above, the legal humble opinion is that there is no need for the provision of proposed paragraph 3.4.8, more so that same, as styled, is contrary to sections 11.4 and 11.5 of the bylaws.

3.0) AFRINIC Staff Recommendations

1) Any real person may participate, either in person or using the Internet (email, videoconferencing, etc.) and that means it is considered part of the PDWG.

In case there is a doubt on the real existence of any participant, other participants can request to AFRINIC for formal verification, taking into consideration the rights of Personal Data Protection.

Since verification tools currently exist and are based on questions on identity that have been raised by PDWG in the past, it is prudent to reword “In case there is a doubt on the real existence of any participant, other participants can request to AFRINIC for formal verification, taking into consideration the rights of Personal Data Protection.” to “Taking into consideration the rights of Personal Data protection, AFRINIC shall formally verify the identity of the persons forming part of the PDWG.”

2) “3.4.4 Additional Functions of the AFRINIC Board of Directors” has been renumbered to “3.4.8 Additional Functions of the AFRINIC Board of Directors” as sections 3.5 to 3.7 of existing CPM are not being modified by this proposal.

3) The legal assessment for Paragraph 3.4.1 above refers. It is therefore recommended that the proposal be updated to consider formal submission of policy proposals rather than mention them as draft proposals and also to ensure that the impact assessment is only provided for the proposal that will be discussed at the Public Policy Meeting. The legal assessment for Paragraph 3.4.3 above refers. The Last Call step as well as ‘editorial changes’ could therefore be clearly and unambiguously defined in the proposal.

4.0) Implementation

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