Update of PDP (Draft-2) 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 favour 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 forum open to the global community 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 the Internet (email, videoconferencing, etc.) and that means it is considered part of the PDWG. If necessary, taking into consideration the rights of Personal Data Protection, AFRINIC may formally verify the identity of the persons forming part of the PDWG. 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, versions of a policy proposal document are made available for discussion by publishing them on the AFRINIC website and posting them to the rpd@afrinic.net list. Each Policy Proposal Version (PPV) 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 PPV, 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 PPV must be available for discussion for at least 2 weeks before the next PPM. The author(s) must make the necessary changes to the PPV according to the feedback received. A PPV expires after 6 months unless it is ratified by the AFRINIC Board of Directors as a policy. The timeout period is restarted when the PPV is replaced by a new version. A Policy Proposal can be withdrawn by the author(s) by sending a notification to the RPD List. Expired PPVs may be updated at a later stage, and will not be considered a new proposal, so they will keep the previous ID. Any PPV 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 Policy Proposal can be determined only once it has been presented and discussed in the PPM. However, if a PPV 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 PPV 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 PPV within 1 week of the meeting. This is so that a stable version of the Policy Proposal 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 Policy Proposals) 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 PPV 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. 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 PPV 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 PPV. 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 Policy Proposal 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.
None	3.4.5 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 introduced as a Policy Proposal so they can be endorsed (or not) by the community. Attending to the exceptionality, the “Varying the Process” section could be used in order to try to speed up the process. In the event that such a Policy Proposal 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.
3.6 Varying the Process The process outlined in this document may vary in the case of an emergency. Variance is for use when a one-time waving of some provision of this document is required. * The decision to vary the process is taken by a Working Group Chair. * There must be an explanation about why the variance is needed. * The review period, including the Last Call, shall not be less than four weeks. * If there is consensus, the policy is approved and it must be presented at the next Public Policy Meeting.	3.6 Varying the Process The timing outlined in this document may vary in the case of an emergency. 1. The decision to vary the process is taken by the Working Group Chairs. 1. There must be a clear and sufficient justification about why the variance is needed. 1. The discussion period for the Policy Proposal will be 4 weeks and the Last Call one week. 1. If there is consensus, the policy is approved and it must be presented at the next PPM.

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
9 Nov 2021	Version 2: AFPUB-2021-GEN-002-DRAFT02 * Changes to accommodate legal terminology as being misunderstood by the staff * Accommodated 3.6 to be shorter and avoid interpretation doubts.
10 Oct 2021	Version 1: AFPUB-2021-GEN-002-DRAFT01 * Initial Draft Posted to rpd

AFRINIC Staff Assessment

17 November 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 PPV/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 PPV expires after 6 months unless it is ratified by the AFRINIC Board of Directors

6. Any PPV 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 PPV 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.

12. Amendments are being proposed for Section 3.6 Varying the Process

2.0) Staff Comments On Areas of Impact

AFRINIC Secretariat Duties

There is no limit to the number of proposals that can be put on an AFRINIC PPM agenda. Impact Assessments are comprehensively prepared and require the contributions of internal stakeholders.

The timing of these assessments to be prepared and published 1 week of 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

Legal Assessment

1. 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 clearly state that proposals for policies are discussed and agreed upon during the Public Policy Meeting. Therefore, a declaration of rough consensus (or not) must be made during the PPM itself.

Any proposal allowing rough consensus to be declared outside the scope and ambit of the PPM is simply not consistent with section 11.3 of the bylaws. Having said that editorial changes can be made during the Last Call before a final declaration is made by the Co-Chairs.

1. 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.

For obvious reasons, Last-Call must 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 is too risky as it 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.

1. As regard paragraph 3.4.5 of the proposal, 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 is questionable. 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.

3.0) Implementation

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