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

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

Owen DeLong owen at
Thu Jul 13 15:25:31 UTC 2017

> On Jul 13, 2017, at 04:20 , Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at> wrote:
> I do not understand the backdrop for this outcry.
> That co-chairs formally inform Board when an agreement has not been
> reached with the aggrieved party is merely a formality that the Board
> and whole community will already be aware of in the first place
> because all discussions are already public. Co-Chairs are trusted
> individuals in this process. I cannot see a circumstance where
> co-chairs can, in bad-faith, refuse to concede that there has been
> disagreement.


The process proposed by the board and articulated by Sunday is that the
co-chairs make the determination when said conflict cannot be resolved between
the co-chairs and the community member(s) raising the appeal.

You are correct that the co-chairs cannot easily deny that the dispute exists,
but they can claim that they believe it can be resolved without formal appeal
for as long as they wish while failing to act in good faith to come to any
resolution other than their original decision.

Is that a likely outcome? No. However, it is a an entirely possible outcome
in the process as documented by Sunday and it does create a clear conflict of
interest for the co-chairs as both decision-making body and as gatekeepers
of the appeal process.

It is akin to structuring a court system such that you if you want to appeal
the decision of a lower court, you must first get permission from that lower
court in order to go to the appellate court.

>> From where I am sitting, we have some really immature community
> members who will at the slightest iota of their positions being
> counter argued with run to the Board for appealing any co-chairs
> decisions. Since co-chairs are the "leaders" in this process, prudence
> demands that they formally declare the stalemate for the Board to take
> action.

I disagree. Prudence demands that there be a committee independent of both the
co-chairs and the board which has the responsibility for handling these appeals.

Specious appeals can be easily and quickly dismissed by this committee as such.

> This community has over and over again displayed immaturity from some
> individuals - I rather let co-chairs formally communicate the
> stalemate.
> Mr Chair; I fully support this approach.

Please review the history of the world and the reasons that virtually every developed
nation depends on an independent judiciary and reconsider your position in this context.


> J
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Andrew Alston
> <Andrew.Alston at> wrote:
>> Mr Folayan, Chair of the board of AfriNIC.
>> I am sitting here almost to stunned to even type this email.
>> The position taken by the board in this regard, as expressed in your email
>> below, quite frankly beggars belief.  The fact that a board, who in large
>> part, drafted a special resolution that attempted to deal with conflict of
>> interest, could take a position like this – where is the consistency?
>> What you are effectively saying in this email is that – when a member of the
>> community decides that the judgement of the co-chairs must be questioned –
>> they must then – rely on the judgement of those same co-chairs – to allow an
>> appeal against their own bad judgement…. If the flaws in that logic train
>> are not obvious – then I don’t know what is.
>> This effectively strips the community of any credible means of appeal – it
>> makes a mockery out of any form of governance – it exposes a fundamental
>> lack of understanding of conflict of interest – and while I thought there
>> was not much that could truly shock me – this email has left me stunned.
>> Please – I appeal to you – back down from this position and restore a little
>> credibility to this process, and to yourselves – because wow… just wow…
>> In one email – you have managed to confirm and solidify every thought I had
>> about the business risks posed by this organisation.
>> Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

More information about the RPD mailing list