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

[rpd] Appeal Committee Terms of Reference (Version 1)

Douglas Onyango ondouglas at
Thu Jul 20 10:31:59 UTC 2017

Hi Andrew,
Comments inline
On 20 July 2017 at 12:42, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at> wrote:
> Comments inline

> Some few comments though:
> 1. Section 2.2 needs to explicitly include the complainant as
> ineligible to be on this committee. I believe this addition will make
> 4.2 easier to implement.
> Am not sure this makes sense in terms of a standing committee – since there
> is no way to pre-determine who will make a complaint.  I believe that the
> whole point of 4.2 was to negate this point – so I don’t agree with the
> assertion made above.

I am hoping for a future without a standing committee. This provision
will mean one less thing to change.

> 2. The same section 3.5 of the PDP speaks of a Recall Committee. I
> think it would be wise to make provisions for the two committees now,
> rather than leaving the Recall Committee for later
> Not sure I agree with you on this one Douglas – because the recall committee
> specifically under section 3.5 excludes people calling for the recall – and
> hence, the comments above apply.

I don't understand what you are saying Andrew. Here is the extract
from the 3.5:  "Anyone may request the recall of a Working Group Chair
at any time, upon written request with justification to the AFRINIC
Board of Directors".

My point is that 3.5 call for a recall committee, and the Appeal
Committee was a warning sign. Let us cater for 3.5 in its entirety at
the earliest possible.

>I also consider the need for a standing
> recall committee to be extreme – because it pre-supposes that members of the
> appeal committee may be regularly recalled.

I am in no way proposing a standing committee. I am merely saying we
need to provide for it. The rest of the discussion is up to the
community to agree on. Also the committee is not to recall appeal
committee members, but rather the PDWG co-chairs AFAIK.

> 3. I think the composition of the committee favours the co-chairs,
> which might be at the expense of the complainant. I would propose
> replacing seat 2 with a community member.
> I don’t have an issue with this – though I would rather than a member of the
> community add a further international person divorced from conflict on any
> proposal affecting members in the AFRINIC region.  As I argued right at the
> start of this process – members of the AFRINIC community who are normally
> contributing towards policy development are in most cases directly
> interested in the outcome of the proposal (since in most cases they have
> direct ties to entities affected by said policies – and this would result in
> a regular activation of clause 4.2)

I have no objection to the said member coming from the international
space. My view is that the current committee composition has more
people who see things from the co-chairs perspective. I want this to
be balanced by adding people who see things from the appellant's
perspective as well.

> 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.
> This point we are in total agreement on – and I would say that any decision
> pending appeal is automatically put on hold – the board cannot legitimately
> ratify something that is under appeal for example, because that would risk a
> situation where a ratification had to be reversed all over again should the
> appeal go a certain way.


> As a final comment – I would also like the ToR’s to specify that a decision
> of the appeal committee is based on simple majority – otherwise we end up in
> a real mess when the arguments about what constitutes an appeal committee
> final decision come about.

I like and support this. I meant to include it in my submission but
skipped my mind. The TOR should prescribe the committee's decision
making mechanism and its leadership. Who heads the committee??


More information about the RPD mailing list