AFPUB-2021-GEN-002-DRAFT03

Identity verification becomes AFRINIC discretion · Draft 2 replaces a process in which participants request verification when existence is doubtful with wording that AFRINIC may verify participants if necessary, subject to personal-data protection. It retains participation by real people; it does not make universal verification mandatory.

Policy proposal versions replace draft-policy terminology · Draft 2 changes DPP to Policy Proposal Version or Policy Proposal in the operative wording. It preserves per-version impact analysis, six-month expiry, eight-week discussion and the meeting/last-call structure. Some old DPP wording remains duplicated in the text and assessment; the terminology change does not itself prove that the staff concerns were resolved.

Emergency variation now specifies four weeks plus one week · Draft 2 newly proposes an amendment to section 3.6: the Working Group Chairs vary timing with clear justification, using four weeks of discussion followed by one week of last call. Draft 1 leaves that section unchanged. The current-text column in Draft 2 describes the previous minimum four-week combined review; it must not be mistaken for the new proposal.

Community endorsement of emergency board policies is explicit · Draft 2 renumbers the additional board-functions section and says emergency changes are introduced as a Policy Proposal for community endorsement, removing the word immediately and the DPP label. The next-meeting limit and preservation of prior actions after non-consensus remain. This is proposed governance wording, not a finding that the board accepted it.

Assessment narrows legal objections and adds workload concerns · The Draft 2 assessment omits Draft 1 objections about global participation, the draft label and per-draft assessment, while retaining objections about consensus timing, last call and emergency board powers. It adds a secretariat warning about preparing assessments for many proposals and late revisions. Omitted objections are not proof of approval or a resolved legal dispute.

Submission for ratification prevents six-month expiry · Draft 3 changes the expiry exception from completed board ratification to submission by the chairs for ratification. A proposal therefore would not expire solely because the board has not yet completed ratification after submission. This is a proposed timing safeguard, not an adoption claim.

Appeals pause the expiry counter · Draft 3 adds an explicit pause of the six-month expiry counter until the Appeal Committee resolves an appeal. Draft 2 has no such pause. This specific expiry protection must be read alongside Draft 3’s separate statement that appeals and recalls do not otherwise modify PDP timing.

Ratification waits for an unresolved appeal · Draft 3 adds an operative conflict-resolution provision requiring the board to hold ratification while an appeal awaits the Appeal Committee. The existing three-person appeal support, two-week filing and recall framework are reproduced, not newly created. Draft 2 has no corresponding ratification hold.

Assessment wording changes without resolving the timing dispute · The Draft 3 assessment explicitly notes that consensus can be determined outside the meeting, while its legal commentary continues to prefer meeting-based consensus and objects to substantive last-call debate. Its board-powers commentary shifts to questioning the need for duplication of the bylaws. These are evolving staff opinions, not authoritative rulings or proof that the proposed powers changed.

Assessment timing text conflicts with the operative deadline · Draft 3’s secretariat paragraph refers to publishing assessments one week after the meeting, whereas its operative proposal still requires at least one week before the meeting. Draft 2’s secretariat paragraph says one week of the meeting. This source inconsistency is not an enacted change to the operative deadline.