[rpd] PDP timeline

[Douglas Onyango]

Hi SM,
Perhaps I wasn't clear so I will try again.
What I am proposing is a provision to enforce an injunction on any
actions predicated on a decision that is the subject of an appeal,
because it would be sub judice.

If, for instance, co-chairs decided to send a policy to the Board for
ratification today, currently nothing bars the board from considering
and ratifying this policy, even if it was forwarded via a decision
that is the subject of an appeal. I am saying this not right. It
should be catered for.

My suggestion is that we create a provision such that no actions can
be taken at any level based on a decision that is the subject of an
appeal. I am also adding that once we put in place this "injunction
provision" we need to understand and cater for how it will affect the
timelines for last call, ratification and implementation of policies
as prescribed in the PDP.

I hope this is clearer.

On 20 July 2017 at 11:49,  <sm+afrinic at elandsys.com> wrote:
> Hi Douglas,
>
> [Not commenting for the Board]
>
> At 00:49 20-07-2017, Douglas Onyango wrote:
>>
>> 6. Additionally, we need to address what happens to actions that are
>> predicated on decisions under appeal. For instance, if a member calls
>> into question the decision to send a policy for ratification, after
>> last call, I don't see any provisions to halt the ratification process
>> pending the hearing, and how such a halt will affect the prescribed
>> PDP timelines.
>
>
> There would have to be consensus on a policy proposal in Last Call.  The
> generally accepted practice is to have a deadline for a Last Call and to
> take the decision after that deadline.  The relevant timeline (please see
> Section 5.5 of the original document) in the PDP was intended to provide the
> flexibility for a variety of circumstances.  There is, in my opinion,
> provision for the above [1].
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
> 1. Please see quoted text.



-- 
Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3
UG: +256 776 716 138