Summary

  • AFRINIC’s DRAFT02 summary describes a petition route when a Board is blocked or refuses ratification without reasons. The operative clause opens that route only when no duly constituted and operative Board exists.
  • The fallback needs 15 working-group members who are registered contacts for distinct resource members across at least three sub-regions, then a fresh staff analysis. The draft remains under discussion.

The summary and the switch

AFRINIC’s proposal for new Policy Development Working Group rules carries two descriptions of its emergency route.

The summary says the Working Group could petition to ratify a policy “in case board is prevented from acting or refuses to ratify without reasons.” That reads like two triggers: a Board unable to act, and a Board that says no without explaining why.

The operative text says something tighter. Clause 3.3.11 gives the Board a reasoned refusal route: when a draft has PDWG consensus, the co-chairs recommend it for ratification; the Board may determine otherwise, but must publish its reasons to the Resource Policy Discussion list. The Working Group then discusses the decision and decides what to do next.

The petition switch appears in the next paragraph. It can be used “where there is no duly constituted and operative Board of Directors.” A refusal by an existing, functioning Board does not meet that written trigger. The summary points to a blocked or unexplained Board; the machinery points to a Board that is absent as an institution.

That is a meaningful difference. The draft’s description sells an emergency exit for deadlock. Its operative clause installs the exit behind a much narrower door.

Fifteen names, three sub-regions, one more review

Even when the trigger is met, a single participant cannot open the door alone. At least 15 PDWG members must support the petition. They must be registered contacts of different AFRINIC resource members and come from at least three sub-regions. Staff then conducts a new analysis. Only if that analysis finds no new issue does the text say the proposal is treated as ratified and implemented by staff.

This is a real fallback, with a defined threshold and a second look at the policy. It is also a route that begins only after the organisation has no operative Board. The draft does not set an equivalent petition route for a functioning Board that declines ratification with reasons, or even for one that refuses without them. In that case the written path is a published decision followed by further Working Group discussion.

The distinction matters because the proposal itself identifies Board quorum as the problem it wants to solve. Its problem summary lists policies left unratified or unimplemented, meetings not held, co-chair and committee renewals missed, NRO NC representatives not renewed, and an inactive RPD list. Those are the authors’ stated reasons for changing the rules. The proposal does not attach a count or date range to those effects; the operative clauses, however, can be read line by line.

A second key remains on the table

Clause 3.3.12 says the Board retains its residual statutory authority and fiduciary responsibility for AFRINIC’s management, oversight and affairs. That may be needed to keep the company’s legal duties intact. It also sits beside a new process in which staff could treat a policy as ratified and implement it when no operative Board exists.

The draft leaves the junction between those clauses unexplained. It gives staff a specific route to act during Board absence, while reserving the Board’s wider authority in the same proposed rulebook. The text does not describe how a later Board would interact with a policy that staff had already implemented through the fallback.

AFRINIC’s current Policy Development Process puts the community’s consensus proposal in front of the Board for ratification. Bylaw 11.2 assigns the Board the duty to call at least one Public Policy Meeting each year; the current manual calls for biannual meetings. DRAFT02 says amendments to Bylaw 11.2 and the NRO NC election process are required, so the new procedures have several doors to pass through before they become the rules.

The draft is listed as under discussion. AFRINIC’s October 28 webinar includes the authors’ presentation; the AFRINIC-38 agenda gives DRAFT02 a 50-minute slot on 18 November. The useful question for those sessions is plain: does the petition route cover a Board that refuses, or only one that no longer exists in a legally operative form? The summary says the former. The operative clause says the latter.

Sources