Summary

  • Two Resource Member endorsements gate candidacies; registered PPM participants choose one candidate by consensus.
  • The selected Co-Chair has a procedural, neutral role and cannot determine policy outcomes.

One seat, a short calendar

The Nomination Committee’s 2 October call seeks one Policy Development Working Group (PDWG) Co-Chair. Nominations close at 23:59 UTC on 29 October, and the final candidate slate is scheduled for 6 November. The selection is planned for the AFRINIC Public Policy Meeting on 18 November in Cape Town. AFRINIC has announced a hybrid meeting, but participants still need to complete its registration process.

This is one of the PDWG’s two co-chair positions. The selection page says the other position remains with its incumbent through the November meeting. In June, the community selected Haitham El-Nakhal for a separate two-year term. The new call gives this seat an exceptional one-year term, ending at the first PPM after that year; future replacements would typically serve two years. The sources do not explain why this transitional term was chosen.

The candidate gate is narrower than the selection room

A candidature must have support from two AFRINIC Resource Members in good standing. The 2026 Election Guidelines add eligibility conditions: candidates must reside in AFRINIC’s service region, show meaningful activity on the AFRINIC RPD list or another RIR’s policy list for at least three aggregate years, and have participated in at least two AFRINIC events in the previous five years. A candidate must also not have authored a policy proposal currently under discussion.

The people who select the co-chair are described differently. They may be individuals acting for Resource Members or participating in their own right, provided they are part of the African Internet community and complete the required PPM registration. The selection call says they will choose by consensus, not by a ballot. That is consistent with the Policy Development Working Group’s community-based model, but the electorate for this appointment is the set of registered meeting participants—not every person who can join an RPD mailing list or take part in open policy discussion.

A facilitator, not a policy veto

The guidelines define the co-chair’s work as procedural, facilitative and neutral. Co-chairs moderate discussions and help ensure that the Policy Development Process follows the Consolidated Policy Manual; they are not authorized by this role to decide policy outcomes. A successful selection therefore gives someone a defined meeting mandate, not a general mandate to speak for every AFRINIC member or Internet user.

This distinction is especially important because the candidate qualification and selector rules do not use the same threshold. Member support helps establish who can stand. Registration and community status establish who can take part in the selection. Neither rule turns attendance into a vote by the entire policy community. The public candidate slate, the recorded selection outcome and the boundaries of the co-chair’s duties are the evidence readers can use to see how the mandate was formed.

Sources