[rpd] PDWG situation without co-chairs

[Owen DeLong]

I am a native English speaker (though some brits might argue that fact as I’m an American).

I will say that the sentence is very clear to me that there is no further action required and the chairs are recalled. “be” and “are” in that context are both of equivalent meaning, but the use of “be” is more in keeping with a style of language generally associated with legal documents.

Owen



> On Feb 9, 2021, at 3:00 AM, Daniel Yakmut via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

> 

> The interpretation of this "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." I understand the statement "...the co-chairs be recalled" as awaiting further action statement, but if the statement is "...the co-chairs are recalled" this could be a definitive statement.

> 

> However, natives or experts of English Language can advise better, alternatively we can hear from Legal Counsel the interpretations.

> 

> 

> 

> Cheers

> 

> Daniel

> 

> On 09/02/2021 10:54 am, Timothy Ola Akinfenwa wrote:

>> +1 Dewole

>> ..."and determine the outcome."

>> That settles it, at least for now!

>> 

>> Best!

>> Tim <./a>

>> 

>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 10:50 AM Dewole Ajao via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>> wrote:

>> Boss, it's the process - and it's been written that way for years in plain sight. 

>> 

>> Anyone may request the recall of a Working Group Chair at any time, upon written request with justification to the AFRINIC Board of Directors. The request must be supported by at least five (5) other persons from the Working Group. The AFRINIC Board of Directors shall appoint a recall committee, excluding the persons requesting the recall and the Working Group Chairs. The recall committee shall investigate the circumstances of the justification for the recall and determine the outcome.

>> The emphasis in there is mine. It might be beneficial to the working group if you or any others could offer alternative interpretations of those sentences so we can look at them together now rather than waste energy litigating (Assuming it becomes clear who will be suing who :-P).  I believe the process to appeal the contents of the PDP is proposing new policy text and convincing the group that the text should be changed.

>> 

>> Regards,

>> Dewole.

>> 

>> On 2/9/2021 10:18 AM, Daniel Yakmut via RPD wrote:

>>> This interpretation is subjective, and it is totally wrong and draconian for the committee to have the powers of investigation, judgement and execution.

>>> 

>>> If truly the Recall committee is this powerful then the process will have be appealed and it is a subject of litigation.

>>> 

>>> Simply,

>>> Daniel

>>> 

>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021, 10:05 AM Alan Barrett <apb.goo at gmail.com <mailto:apb.goo at gmail.com>> wrote:

>>> Dear PDWG,

>>> 

>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 00:51, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto: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, 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 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."

>>> 

>>> Regards,

>>> Alan Barrett

>>> 

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> RPD mailing list

>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

>>> 

>>> 

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> RPD mailing list

>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

>> -- 

>> Regards,

>> 

>> Dewole.

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210212/7529b0e5/attachment.html>