AFPUB-2020-GEN-002-DRAFT05

Meeting-section amendment scope · Draft 2 extends the proposed amendment to CPM section 3.4.2 and presents current and proposed meeting text, retaining two weeks of agenda notice and the one-week draft freeze. The proposed 3.4.2 text omits the current section's express consensus-at-the-meeting and three-week minutes sentences; co-chair consensus and reporting duties remain elsewhere in the proposal. This is a change to the draft's amendment scope, not evidence that those duties were abolished or that the draft was adopted.

Restricted online electorate after failed consensus · Draft 3 replaces the fallback ballot open to everyone physically present with an online secret ballot within two weeks after the meeting. Its electorate is former PDWG co-chairs, board chairs and CEOs who completed at least one term and were not recalled, with one vote per person holding multiple past roles. Ranked preferential counting remains.

Board responsibility for interim appointments · Draft 3 assigns fallback interim appointments to the board rather than its chair. For a lone candidate who fails to obtain consensus it adds a two-week deadline after the meeting. It also transfers the fallback temporary meeting-chair appointment to the board. These are proposed governance responsibilities, not evidence of an appointment having occurred.

Explicit continuity when both co-chairs are recalled · Draft 3 adds a path for simultaneous recall: the board chair leads the working group's urgent selection of interim co-chairs; if consensus fails, the board appoints them within two weeks of that finding. Draft 2 addresses a remaining co-chair but has no corresponding simultaneous-recall provision.

Removal of the separate meeting-section amendment · Draft 3 returns the stated amendment scope to CPM section 3.3 and removes Draft 2's separate current/proposed section 3.4.2 comparison. The working-group and co-chair responsibilities remain in the draft; this does not establish any change to the adopted CPM.

Expanded staff and legal assessment · The retained assessment changes from 30 August 2020 feedback to a 28 October 2021 assessment. The latter discusses active-participant ambiguity, online voting and meeting-platform impacts, and legal objections concerning scope, residence restrictions, recall and board-chair appeals. These are attributed review concerns, not a finding that the draft was adopted, rejected or legally invalid.

Specified CPM provisions to be replaced · Draft 4 explicitly identifies paragraphs 2 and 3 of CPM section 3.3 and section 3.5.3 as provisions to be superseded. Draft 3 names section 3.3 without that precision. This identifies the proposed scope, not an enacted repeal.

CEO leads consensus when co-chairs are absent · Draft 4 replaces the board chair with the AFRINIC CEO as the person who leads the working group's appointment process when no co-chair is available, including after both co-chairs are recalled or resign. Board responsibility for fallback interim appointments remains.

Additional eligibility for recall supporters · Draft 4 retains the minimum of ten other recall supporters and additionally requires ten different organisations, at least one year of mailing-list subscription and attendance at a public policy meeting during the previous two years, remotely or in person. It also requires publication of the recall request.

Recall committee composition and conflict safeguard · Draft 4 specifies a three-member recall committee: one Council of Elders member selected by that body, one Governance Committee member selected by that committee, and one community member selected by the board. The earlier express exclusion of the complainants and co-chair is not repeated in the replacement wording. The retained draft alone does not establish a replacement conflict-of-interest safeguard.

Express recall grounds and hearing provision · Draft 4 adds hearing the parties and express grounds requiring recall if proven: inability to perform the role, deliberate obstruction of progress, or constant and persistent violations of the PDP or working-group rules. The four-week decision period remains, but the earlier explicit starting point, when the recall is recorded, is omitted.

CEO handles posting-suspension appeals · Draft 4 moves posting-privilege appeals from the board chair to the CEO and expressly permits annulment of a disproportionate or unjustified suspension. The CEO's decision is described as final and binding. The later staff assessment questions the duplication with the existing Appeal Committee; that concern is not itself a policy decision.

Revised assessment of decision-making roles · The 15 November 2021 assessment adds objections to using different groups for consensus and fallback voting, and to making the CEO an alternative appeal venue. It records no staff clarification requests while retaining legal concerns. This is revised review feedback, not proof that all objections were resolved.

Narrower description of the working group's purpose · Draft 5 replaces the broad reference to number-resource policies and related topics of interest with proposals for proper and responsible usage and management of Internet numbers. This narrows the draft's description of the forum without establishing a new adopted discussion restriction.

Higher meeting-attendance requirement for candidates · Draft 5 changes co-chair candidate attendance from at least two meetings during the last three years to at least four of the six most recent meetings before the call for volunteers. One meeting must still have been in person. It describes experience gained through participation, particularly editing or authoring proposals, without making authorship a separate mandatory qualification.

Appeal Committee replaces CEO but a contradictory sentence remains · Draft 5 directs posting-suspension appeals to the PDP Appeal Committee and assigns it the hearing and annulment decision. It nevertheless retains a sentence making the CEO's decision final and binding, which the staff assessment flags as a likely typo. The contradiction must remain explicit rather than being silently treated as settled.

Discretionary use of the appointment conflict-resolution path · Draft 5 changes the instruction for a person disputing a co-chair's appointment-process actions from shall follow to may follow the PDP conflict-resolution process. The separate final-and-binding wording for board appointment actions remains.

Assessment retains concerns and identifies the appeals typo · Draft 5's retained legal assessment continues to question the residence restriction and the different fallback-voting electorate, and explicitly identifies the remaining CEO finality sentence as a likely typo. The earlier objection to a separate CEO appeal venue is no longer presented in that form; this does not establish legal approval or adoption.

Final appeal authority made consistent · Draft 6 replaces the residual CEO finality sentence with a statement that the Appeal Committee's decision is final and binding. This aligns the sentence with the preceding referral, hearing and annulment powers already assigned to that committee in Draft 5. It corrects the contradiction identified by the earlier staff assessment; it does not establish that the proposal took effect.

Draft 6 assessment is still in progress · Draft 6's retained page replaces the substantive staff, legal and financial assessment with an in-progress notice. The earlier concerns about residence and the fallback electorate are therefore not shown as resolved. The missing assessment is a limit on the available review evidence, not an endorsement of Draft 6.