Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Appeal Committee Terms of Reference (Version 1)
owen at delong.com
Wed Aug 9 21:02:59 UTC 2017
> On Aug 3, 2017, at 13:24 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2017 2:57 p.m., "Sunday Folayan" <sfolayan at gmail.com <mailto:sfolayan at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Dear JRH, PDWG,
> Dear Chairman Afrinic Board,
> Thank you for the various comments and questions on the Board's reasoning RE: Appeal Committee's TOR.
> Recall my initial email that we will not be responding to every comments and conversation, but will put together and consider all comments at the end of the comments period.
> The Board continues to encourage an active discussion on the matter and we will compile all views at the end of the comments period.
> Good. Please see below.
> Kindly make alternative proposals to whatever arrangement you consider not appropriate in the current draft TOR as circulated.
> Thanks you and I note that your query for suggestion sounds like an active confirmation of the board inability to design an appeal committee which adheres to what we have been saying.
I would say that his query for suggestions sounds more like a request for useful feedback and input into the process rather than any inability whatsoever.
Really, is it necessary to turn everything into an attempt to discredit the individual posting it in any case where you disagree with the individual in question?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD