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

[rpd] REPORT ON Appeal against the non-consensus determination on proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02 (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space – Draft 2).

ALAIN AINA aalain at
Mon Jan 25 21:34:49 UTC 2021

Hello PDWG

It sounds like a good season to pay attention to the AC work. I revisited the recent decision of the AC regarding the abuse contact policy proposal.

Some comments and questions came to mind... see below

1- issues list

The AC said that the cochairs also considered the issues below.
a. Staff analysis on how the draft policy affects legacy holders seems not conclusive, especially on how it affects legacy holders

b. The policy proposal doesn't state what will be the consequences ifa member fails to comply

c. Why there is need to create the abuse contact when there is no consequence for not providing the abuse contact

d.Abuse contact email issue with GDPR in Whois database

e. No proper definition of the term abuse

f. To force members to reply to their abuse email is not in the duty of AFRINIC

While the AC recognized that community members who spoke during the PPM raised some of these issues, it did not say who and when the other issues were raised

2-on the facts presented by the appelants

The AC said nothing about the reliefs sought by the appeal.

The AC said nothing on the grounds of the appeal as exposed by the appellants.

The AC failed to explain why the arguments and justifications of the appelants regarding the issues above were not satisfactory.

3- on its proceedings

In the statement below, the AC did not say which objections with sufficient concern, some of its members referred to and how these issue were not addressed satisfactorily
Whereas two (2) members of the Committee observed that either the objections raised were addressed or out of the policy's scope, two (2) members noted that the declaration of consensus under consideration in this appeal is guided by Section 3.4.2 of the AFRINIC PDP in the CPM where it is observed that there was significant opposition to the policy during the PPM at which community members raised objections with sufficient concern. One (1) member of the Committee was neutral
What does it mean for a committee member to be neutral?
How come he does not find that either the “objections raised were addressed or out of scope” or that there were “objections with serious concerns”? What does it mean for a judge to be neutral in this case?

5- on the decision

XII. Final assessment of Appeal Committee on the Appeal
The Committee could not agree on whether the co-chairs' determination on non- consensus should be overturned.

XII. Conclusion
The Committee did not reach agreement to overturn the decision of the Co-chairs as appealed
The above decision is not inline with the section 3.5 (point 2) of the PDP and section 4.8 of the ToR which imposes that ruling of the AC are based on the facts put before it and that based on these facts, the AC to decide whether the PDP was followed or not and annul cochairs decisions if the PDP was not followed.

How shall the WG interpret this indecision of the AC?

On the general, I found that the AC not following its ToR in the proceedings, decisions and reporting.
The report, I referred to here does not contain the AC’s assessment of the facts put before it and it’s ruling on the grounds of the appeal raised by the appelants.
(Section 4.7 of the ToR)

It is more about the AC members personal assessment on the decision made by the cochairs. That would be like a retrial when the AC is a review, appeal, on technicalities and tell if procedure followed or not



> On 22 Jan 2021, at 12:48, wafa Dahmani <wafatn7604 at> wrote:


> Dear Community,


> This is to inform you that the Report on Appeal against the non-consensus determination on proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02 (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space – Draft 2) and the minutes have been published following the links below:






> Best Regards

> Wafa Dahmani

> Chair of the Appeal Committee


> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at


More information about the RPD mailing list