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

[rpd] [Board-Discuss] BOARD Response: Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"

Mike Silber silber.mike at
Thu Jul 13 14:26:29 UTC 2017

Apologies for top-posting, but there was little way to parse this situation of people talking past each other.

Having observed for a while, I think we can agree that there is some ambiguity in the drafting.

I also think we can accept that there needs to be some limitation on the time in which appeals can be lodged or issues once thought resolved could come back to haunt us. Two weeks seems reasonable to me.

I think that the ambiguity is that the term “decision” could be EITHER the action of the chair that causes the disagreement, OR the circumstance where the disagreement cannot be resolved.

So let me suggest a middle ground:

1) we accept we need some better wording to resolve the ambiguity; and

2) we accept (for now at least) that the inability to resolve the disagreement is the “decision” that triggers the clock. That inability to be evidenced by a statement from either the disagreeing (or is that disagreeable?) person or the PDWG Chair/s (with a copy to the other) indicating that the disagreement cannot be resolved. 

3) the Board comes out with a clarifying statement indicating that it regards the inability to resolve the disagreement as the “decision” that triggers the clock

May not be the most elegant solution, but could work as an interim resolution while we look at amending the PDP?

Comments most welcome. Disagreement welcomed if respectful.


> On 13 Jul 2017, at 14:15, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at> wrote:
> 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”

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

More information about the RPD mailing list