Search RPD Archives
[rpd] PDWG situation without co-chairs
sfolayan at skannet.com
Tue Feb 9 15:32:36 UTC 2021
On 2/9/21 10:02 AM, Alan Barrett wrote:
> Dear PDWG,
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 00:51, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
>> No Daniel, the output of the Recall Committee regarding the
>> Co-Chairs is already final (read point 19 from their report)
>> according to whats the CPM says about it, so it does not
>> have to be approved by anyone, not even the Board itself.
>> So currently we don't have any Co-Chairs.
Yes, this is the position of things. Let us accept it, move on and do
> Yes, as far as I understand, the Recall Committee's decision is final.
> Article 3.5(3) of the CPM gives the Recall Committee the power to
> "determine the outcome", not merely to suggest or report to some other
> party. The Board also stated "The Recall Committee will report the
> outcome to the Policy Development Working Group. The decision of the
> Recall Committee is final." (That is in a document from the Board
> that might not have been published, but is referenced from page 3 of
> the Recall Committee's Working Procedure document.)
The decision of the recall committee is final. There is no doubt about
that. The CPM is clear about this.
> The Recall Committee gave their decision in paragraph 19 of the "Final
> Determination" document: "19. The Committee therefore determines that
> a recall of both the co-Chairs is justifiable in the circumstances,
> and that both the co-Chairs be recalled with immediate effect.".
>> What the Committee has mentioned in the document is for the
>> Board to lead the election of the new Co-Chairs and determine
>> the transition during this interim.
> Yes, the last sentence of paragraph 20 of the Recall Committee's
> report is a suggestion; it is not binding: "The Committee suggests
> that the Board coordinate with the PDWG to find an adequate transition
> mechanism until the next election."
o This recommendation is outside the scope of the recall committee. It
need not give the Board a task again.
o The task of the Board ended with the appointment of the RC as per the
CPM, unless the PDWG assigns another task to it.
o The CPM states how vacancies should be filled. That is what needs to
> Alan Barrett
I must commend your committee for the depth of your work. I however
think a small detail should be avoided in the future (There will always
be a future, after a gate). specifically:
"8. In referring to the information obtained from AFRINIC’s staff and/or
those already available publicly, the Committee is mindful of its role
to act independently, impartially and with integrity; and as such, it
has at all times limited itself to the contents of the recall petition
and it has not taken into consideration, any fact not forming part of
the recall petition."
This means that the petition was the sole consideration and not even the
defense of the co-chairs, when sought. Facts are Facts, no matter where
Is this the design or a flaw?
More information about the RPD