Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] [Board-Discuss] RPD appeal committee

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at
Wed Jul 12 03:34:57 UTC 2017

Dear Mr Folayan,

Many thanks for the prompt response.

If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion.

While I fully acknowledge that it is the boards prerogative entirely as to who they appoint to this committee, I would ask the board to consider the following:

Because any person on this continent who actively understands the PDP and the consensus process behind it, may be perceived as having an interest in a policies outcome, one way or another, may I suggest that the appeals committee be made up of individuals from other RIR's or are completely outside of the region.  This way, any appeal is entirely divorced from the PDP in Africa itself and is entirely neutral in the decisions behind it.  This avoids potential shouts of conflict of interest down the line (as we have seen the community is sensitive about conflict of interest, even in the 20 resolutions put forward in Mauritius, while so many of them failed, the one regarding conflict passed, I believe this clearly demonstrates how this community leans on this)

If I may also suggest, because the board has to ratify these policies at a later point, and this committee must be entirely neutral, that the board distance itself from the committee, and acts as merely an appointing mechanism, but allows the committee to act entirely in a black box, with no involvement from the board, staff or other potentially conflicted entities.

So, my suggestion therefore in summary, is to use out of region people, possibly even the chairs of other RIR's, and let the appeal process be neutral, and divorced from the conflict we see in this region between factions, especially when we consider that the factionalism driving this process at the moment has been clearly articulated, both at the microphone in Mauritius and again in Kenya.



From: Sunday Folayan [mailto:sfolayan at]
Sent: 11 July 2017 20:46
To: AFRINIC Board of Directors' List <board at>; Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at>
Cc: AfriNIC RPD MList. <rpd at>
Subject: Re: [Board-Discuss] RPD appeal committee

Dear Mr Alston,

The Board will get back to you and the community on this, within the next day.

Thanks and Regards ...

On 11/07/2017 14:06, Andrew Alston wrote:
Hi Board,

Under section 3.5 of the CPM the board is mandated to have appointed an appeal committee to appeal the decision of the chairs should a member of the community disagree with said decision.

Please can the board - as a matter of urgency - inform this community who sits on the appeal committee - who chairs it - and where appeals can be directed to.



Get Outlook for iOS<>
From: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at><mailto:Andrew.Alston at>
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 3:45:28 PM
To: Omo Oaiya; Owen DeLong
Cc: AfriNIC RPD MList.
Subject: Re: [rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"


Need a remind you, rough consensus is achieved when all issued have been addressed but not necessarily accommodated.

So, let us look at this - firstly the legal advisor is explicitly stating in his letter to this community that the issued have not be addressed.

Secondly, even if each and every issued had been addressed and not accommodated - we then get into the issue of board fiduciary duty.  The legal advisor to the company has advised publicly that this policy creates substantial legal risk to the company.  At that point, even if the policy passed consensus on this list - with a warning like that, it could very easily be argued that the board has a fiduciary duty to decline to ratify this.

So - one of two things
a.) either we discount the legal advisor stating the issued have not been addressed - in which consensus has not been reached and the policy should be returned for further edits or withdrawn as per the PDP or
b.) we consider that the issued have been addressed yet not accommodated - in which case I would argue the board has a legal obligation to decline to ratify the policy on the grounds of risk to the company as stated by the legal advisor.  In this scenario - continuing with this process seems pointless since the policy can't ever actually make it into fruition.

Furthermore, I point to my email in response to Ashok - and what the current RSA says - and I would STRONGLY argue that binding a company to this policy in its current form is in the detriment of the company, which means that a modification to the RSA almost certainly has to be *agreed* by the contracting parties, both AfriNIC and the individual member (it cannot be done collectively, since, as Ashok said, the RSA is between AfriNIC and a member and is a two party contract).  Right now - if faced with an RSA that bound me to a policy such as this one - I can tell you I would fight very hard against agreeing to it.

Then there is another issue - by forcing any entity to be bound by a policy like this - while denying said entity the right to go elsewhere with their resources - you could well open another can of worms - but that can of worms - I will address on another day in another email, those who know to what I refer are free to elaborate further if they choose.


From: Omo Oaiya [mailto:Omo.Oaiya at]
Sent: 11 July 2017 11:27
To: Owen DeLong <owen at><mailto:owen at>
Cc: AfriNIC RPD MList. <rpd at><mailto:rpd at>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"


The final legal feedback notwithstanding (which I am sure the authors will respond to), I only see negative feedback from a handful of people.  The fact that this is voiced repeatedly does not in any way increase the volume.

It is your misinterpretation that is more likely to be confusing to the community.  Resource review is essential activity for Internet registries even if they are only bookkeepers like some would have them be.

AFRINIC would be failing in its accountability to the community without a policy like this.   Please let the Co-Chairs do their job


On 10 July 2017 at 23:18, Owen DeLong <owen at<mailto:owen at>> wrote:

The final legal feedback notwithstanding, I think there has been more than enough negative feedback in this last call to make it quite clear that this policy does NOT have consensus at this time and I urge the co-chairs to remand it to the authors and the list for further refinement or abandonment rather than leaving it in last call status. There is no reason for last call to be maintained beyond the point where clearly the policy has no consensus as is and will need substantial revision. It only confuses the community.


> On Jul 10, 2017, at 12:55 , SamiSalih <sami at<mailto:sami at>> wrote:
> Dear Andrew and Community,
> As section (3.4.3) of the CPM stated the last call can't be less than two week, however the document didn't specify exact period for last call to be concluded.
> Please refer to the last Call section in the following link
> The Co-chair are evaluating feedbacks specially those related to the legal issues in the policy and as you know we just received the final assessment of the legal advisor today.
> Best Regards,
> Dr. Sami Salih  | Assistant Professor
> Sudan University of Science and Technology
> Eastern Dum, P.O Box 11111-407
> email: sami.salih at<mailto:sami.salih at>
> Mob: +249122045707<tel:%2B249122045707>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at<mailto:Andrew.Alston at>>
>> To: rpd at<mailto:rpd at>
>> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 9:53:22 PM
>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"
>> By the way, as a question to the RPD co-chairs.
>> Standard process is that last call is a 2 week period.  By my count, last
>> call has now been open longer than that on this policy - can we get can
>> indication from the co-chairs as to when consensus or lack thereof will be
>> declared for this last call period please.
>> Thanks
>> Andrew
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ashok Radhakissoon [mailto:ashok at<mailto:ashok at>]
>> Sent: 10 July 2017 14:07
>> To: rpd at<mailto:rpd at>
>> Subject: [rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number
>> Resources Review by AFRINIC"
>> Dear All,
>> Find for your consideration my final assessment of the proposed policy under
>> reference.
>> Regards
>> Ashok.B.Radhakissoon
>> Legal Adviser
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at<mailto:RPD at>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at<mailto:RPD at>

RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at><>

Omo Oaiya
CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN
Mobile: +234 808 888 1571<tel:0808%20888%201571> , +221 784 305 224
Skype: kodion<>


board mailing list

board at<mailto:board at><>



Sunday Adekunle Folayan

Managing Director

General data Engineering Services (SKANNET)

16 Oshin Road, Kongi Bodija, Ibadan - Nigeria

Phone: +234 802 291 2202, +234 816 866 7523

Email: sfolayan at<mailto:sfolayan at>, sfolayan at<mailto:sfolayan at>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list