Search RPD Archives
[rpd] [Board-Discuss] BOARD Response: Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"
Andrew Alston
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
Thu Jul 13 12:15:22 UTC 2017
Sunday, not at all.
The PDP states in section 3.5 that the appeal shall be lodged within 2 weeks of *THE DECISION THAT IS DISAGREED WITH* being made – not the end of the negotiation with the PDP co-chairs.
So again – what you are saying is out of line with the process.
I quote:
A person who disagrees with the actions taken by the Chair(s) shall discuss the matter with the PDWG Chair(s) or with the PDWG. If the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, the person may file an appeal with an Appeal Committee appointed by the AFRINIC Board of Directors. An appeal can only be filed if it is supported by three (3) persons from the Working Group who have participated in the discussions.
The appeal must be submitted within two weeks of the public knowledge of the decision. The Appeal Committee shall issue a report on its review of the complaint to the Working Group. The Appeal Committee may direct that the Chair(s) decision be annulled if the Policy Development Process has not been followed.
This text does NOT refer to when it is decided that the disagreement cannot be resolved through negotiation – it clearly states the appeal must be submitted within two weeks of the public knowledge of the DECISION – and since there is no DECISION formally taken by any party as to if negotiations have failed – the only DECISION is the one being appealed.
So – actually – there is a time limit on this – because if the two week period passes and the negotiations with the co-chairs are still ongoing – the ability to seek further redress is eliminated.
So please – read these things.
Furthermore – the CPM does NOT specify that there must be a week long period of negotiations before filing an appeal – it says the appeal can be lodged at ANY point in those two weeks – if the party feels that the negotiations have failed – that can be within 10 minutes.
Sorry – your proposal does not meet the requirements of the CPM – and I am at an absolute loss to understand why the board is so resistant to appointing a standing committee of appeal, other than “we don’t want to do it”
Andrew
From: Sunday Folayan [mailto:sfolayan at gmail.com]
Sent: 13 July 2017 15:00
Cc: AFRINIC Board of Directors' List <board at afrinic.net>; rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Board-Discuss] BOARD Response: Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"
Douglas, Andrew, Owen and all,
Just to clarify the Board's position on this.
The Board assures all, that a committee will be available for community members to lodge their appeal once required as per the CPM.
The board will appoint an appeal committee as soon as it becomes clear that there is a likelihood of an appeal. For example, as soon as it becomes clear that the discussions (in terms of the first sentence of CPM 3.5) is likely to lead to continued disagreement.
Let us not forget that the Co-Chairs are indeed required by the PDP to make such declaration.
Nevertheless, community members also have the option to raise this within the PDWG itself and if within a week the Co-Chairs and the aggrieved community member do not communicate a resolution, then the appeal can follow.
Note that the PDP is silent on how long the deliberation can take, that is why the Board suggested one week so that the community member can still have the opportunity to appeal if applicable.
I hope the Board position is clearer now.
Sunday Folayan.
Board Chair
On 13/07/2017 09:28, Douglas Onyango wrote:
Mr Chair,
Unfortunately, I have to agree with Owen and the others on this.
Expecting the co-chairs to be the gateway to the appeal process just
isn’t pragmatic or wise. It is akin to asking the public to report
issues of Police abuse through the very same Police, which leaves room
for abuse and even more room for suspicion from the aggrieved party.
I earnestly hope the Board will rethink this position.
That being said, I agree with you that there is no need for a standing
committee for appeals: there just isn’t enough work for it. To be
sure, this is the first time I know of any serious intentions to use
this committee since afpub-2010-gen-005 was written in 2010/11.
I suggest that we take a two pronged approach to resolve this issue:
First, the Board appoints a standing committee immediately, so that we
are in compliance with 3.5 of the CPM and that any conflict/grievance
can be handled expeditiously.
Second, measures are taken immediately to review our policy to cover
the gaps and ambiguity we have uncovered. For instance, drafters of
the new Policy Development draft proposal
(AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) can make some revisions, so that appeals
can be reports and heard, without the need for a standing committee –
say via an adhoc committee that can be engaged and disengaged when
there are no appeals to be dealt with. At the same time other kinks in
the conflict resolution process can also be ironed out.
Regards,
On 13 July 2017 at 08:39, Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at gmail.com><mailto:sfolayan at gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr Alston,
Thank you very much for requesting the setup of an appeal committee.
The Board does not see the need to keep a standing committee to handle
appeals arising from Co-Chairs' decision on the PDWG.
If indeed there is the need to setup such a committee, the request will come
from the co-chairs, who will declare that they were not able to reach an
agreement with the aggrieved party, in accordance with Section 3.5 of the
CPM.
The interpretation of the Board is that two weeks begins from the date the
Co-Chairs inform the Board that they are not able to reach an agreement with
the aggrieved party. The Board will setup a committee within one week,
leaving a clear one week for the party to file the appeal.
Thanks and Regards,
Sunday.
On 12/07/2017 13:49, Sunday Folayan wrote:
Dear Mr Alston,
I acknowledge your request.
The Board will get back to you on this.
Kind Regards ...
Sunday.
On 12/07/2017 11:51, Andrew Alston wrote:
Let me put this another way - and I formally request that the board seek
legal opinion on this and provide this community feedback - in the event of
a clear and substantiated legal risk to the company - that has been
officially stated by legal council - existing, and a director continuing to
advocate for the same - does this not constitute a breach of section 143.c
and potentially 143.d of the Mauritian companies act.
While in the past we have all agreed that board members have the right to
partake in the PDP - something I fully and wholeheartedly support - and
while I think it is prudent to assume that legal risk raised must be clearly
substantiated before a breach of fiduciary duty can occur, I would like
legal view on where this line is - and I would like the board to provide
this feedback to the community in official capacity
Thanks
Andrew
Get Outlook for iOS
________________________________
From: David Hilario <d.hilario at laruscloudservice.net><mailto:d.hilario at laruscloudservice.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 1:34:12 PM
To: Bope Domilongo Christian
Cc: rpd List
Subject: Re: [rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet
Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"
Hi Christian,
On 12 July 2017 at 12:01, Bope Domilongo Christian
<christianbope at gmail.com><mailto:christianbope at gmail.com> wrote:
[Speaking on my own capacity]
I understand this to mean the "board hat" has been removed.
I have been in support of this review policy proposal since its inception
and have followed carefully the progression.
My support counted in those who made the policy proposal enter the last
call.
I expect its adoption as this region really needs such a POLICY
specifically
in post IPV4 transition and for the sake of transparency and
accountability
of the management of public resources.
When it will be time for you to ratify the policy, with the "board
hat" back on, how can you possibly then ratify a policy that has a
direct negative feedback from the AFRINIC ltd's legal advisor from the
company you then represent?
A policy that potentially puts the company at risks according to the
legal advisor's own report.
Doesn't that puts you as a board of directors member, who is expected
to work in the best interest of the organisation "AFRINIC Ltd" in a
tough position to justify even considering passing such a policy, with
hat on or not.
With Best Regards,
Christian D. Bope
On 12 July 2017 at 16:30, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz><mailto:noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:
On 12 Jul 2017 9:47 a.m., "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net><mailto:woody at pch.net> wrote:
18 Against:
"chenghn at chinaccsi.com"<mailto:chenghn at chinaccsi.com> <chenghn at chinaccsi.com><mailto:chenghn at chinaccsi.com>
Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com><mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
Bastein Li <bastienlee at qq.com><mailto:bastienlee at qq.com>
Christopher Mwangi <christopher.mwangi at liquidtelecom.com><mailto:christopher.mwangi at liquidtelecom.com>
David Hilario <d.hilario at laruscloudservice.net><mailto:d.hilario at laruscloudservice.net>
Derrick Harrison <derrick.harrison at sonictelecoms.co.za><mailto:derrick.harrison at sonictelecoms.co.za>
Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at gmail.com><mailto:ondouglas at gmail.com>
Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com><mailto:seeburn.k at gmail.com>
Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com><mailto:h.lu at anytimechinese.com>
Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za><mailto:mje at posix.co.za>
Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu><mailto:mark.tinka at seacom.mu>
McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com><mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com>
Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com><mailto:silber.mike at gmail.com>
Nishal Goburdhan <nishal at controlfreak.co.za><mailto:nishal at controlfreak.co.za>
Noah <noah at neo.co.tz><mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>
S Moonesamy <sm+afrinic at elandsys.com><mailto:sm+afrinic at elandsys.com>
Saul Stein <saul at enetworks.co.za><mailto:saul at enetworks.co.za>
Hi Bill
on the contrary, I actually support the policy just like other folks
which
is why it reached the last call. This policy would enable AFRINIC just
like
ARIN, RIPE NCC and other RIR to effect compliance.
So, the next question might be whether this is a winner-take-all vote, or
an assessment of whether a clear consensus exists.
We continue to trust the co-chairs who have guided us to this stage.
Cheers
Noah
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
David Hilario
IP Manager
Larus Cloud Service Limited
p: +852 29888918 m: +359 89 764 1784
f: +852 29888068
a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR
w: laruscloudservice.net
e: d.hilario at laruscloudservice.net<mailto:d.hilario at laruscloudservice.net>
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
_______________________________________________
board mailing list
board at afrinic.net<mailto:board at afrinic.net>
http://board-list.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/board<http://board-list.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/board>
--
--------------------------------------------------
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 skannet.com.ng<mailto:sfolayan at skannet.com.ng>, sfolayan at gmail.com<mailto:sfolayan at gmail.com>
---------------------------------------------------
--
--------------------------------------------------
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 skannet.com.ng<mailto:sfolayan at skannet.com.ng>, sfolayan at gmail.com<mailto:sfolayan at gmail.com>
---------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
--
--------------------------------------------------
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 skannet.com.ng<mailto:sfolayan at skannet.com.ng>, sfolayan at gmail.com<mailto:sfolayan at gmail.com>
---------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170713/54195089/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list