[rpd] Appeal Committee Response - Re: (Fwd) Appeal Committee status

[Wijdane Goubi]

Dear community,
I certainly agree on what Anthony said and firmly believe that the points
he addressed are true concerns that we should take into consideration.
The Appeal Committee shall continue to perform their duties by dealing with
the appeal we have at hand and making a clear decision on it since they
agreed on doing so, until there is no appeal in progress which is, in my
opinion, the most logical way to move forward with the policy proposals.
In addition, I don’t not see solid reasons on why the board would want to
pause the functioning of the appeal committee members since the appeal have
not surpassed 6 months yet, and why it is even in a rush to replace them.
I personally think that the board should avoid any kind of moves or
decisions that would put them in a doubtful position and let the members
handle the remaining appeal; subsequently the replacement process shall
take place accordingly.
Regards,
Wijdane

Le ven. 19 févr. 2021 à 18:59, Anthony Ubah <ubah.tonyiyke at gmail.com> a
écrit :


> Hello  Board Chair, AFRINIC et al

>

> I agree with the Appeal Committee’s (AC) decision, as the decision of the

> AC is done in accordance with the prerogative of the AC. It is the

> responsibility of the AC to sit and preside on whatever appeals are

> currently is presented before them. This is good for the community, the

> Appeal, and AFRINIC in general.

>

> The prerogative of the AC is as stipulated under the AFRINIC Policy

> Development Appeal Committee Terms of Reference subsection 3.3.1, & 3.3.4

> on which it must comply, and, the ToR's stipulations are very clear.

> It states under, subsection 3.3. (Terms):

>

>

>> ToR 3.3.1:

>>

>> “The Board has the right to replace any or all Appeal Committee members

>> at any time. Such decision of the Board must be by at least three-quarters

>> of the Board”

>>

>> ToR 3.3.4:

>>

>> “In the event that an appeal is in progress at a time when the Board

>> considers replacement of any or all Appeal Committee members, then the

>> Board should delay any such replacement until such time as there is no

>> appeal in progress; except that, if there continue to be appeals in

>> progress after six (6) months, then the Board shall not delay any longer.”

>

>

> Both the above wording read together is consistent with the decisions

> achieved by the AC, that the AC shall perform their pending duties and,

> ensure the resolution of the current appeal before leaving their post. This

> is their duty and we applaud the fact that the AC is willing to ensure the

> performance of their duties before going through with their resignation.

>

> Nevertheless, I find the Board’s instruction to pause the function of the

> Appeal Committee to be wrongful, as I do not see what is capable of

> stopping a perfectly odd number of 3 members of the Appeal Committee(AC)

> from functioning. As explained in subsection 3.3.4 of the ToR, the Board

> should restrain itself from pausing the Appeal Committee’s function when

> there are appeals in progress. Also, the fact that the appeals in progress

> have not even been more than 6 months, I do not see the logic of even

> stopping the Appeal Committee from continuing to convene to perform its

> duties.

>

> The fact that the Board, despite the AC’s agreement to continue with their

> duties and sit for the remaining appeal, still insists on a replacement

> and, halting the entire appeal process raises doubts on what the intention

> of the board is.

> "What is the Board trying to do?"

> I understand that interference is warranted when the situation demands it,

> however, at this juncture, it can be perceived that the board is more

> interested in replacing the members of the AC rather than getting the

> appeals at hand resolved. This projects as though the Board's aim and

> priorities are not resolving the issues. This as a whole is a serious

> concern that I believe the community should consider.

>

> This is my position.

>

> *Best Regards,*

>

> *UBAH ANTHONY*

>

>

> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 9:06 AM Dr P Nyirenda <paulos at sdnp.org.mw> wrote:

>

>>

>> Board Chair, AFRINIC,

>>

>> The Appeal Committee (AC) held its scheduled meeting on Thursday, 18 Feb

>> 2021, online

>> where it also considered on it agenda your e-mail sent to individual

>> Appeal Committee

>> members as copied here below.

>>

>> As you will see in the AC minutes soon to be published, the quorate

>> meeting was chaired by

>> Adam Nelson and I was asked to send you a reply to your e-mails.

>>

>> The Committee noted in its terms of reference (ToR) that the AFRINIC

>> Board has the right to

>> replace any or all Appeal Committee members subject to ToR Section 3.3.1

>> among others,

>> see https://afrinic.net/policy/appeal-committee#tor

>>

>> However the Committee observed in Section 3.3.4 of the ToR that:

>> "3.3.4. In the event that an appeal is in progress at a time when the

>> Board considers

>> replacement of any or all Appeal Committee members, then the Board should

>> delay any such

>> replacement until such time as there is no appeal in progress; except

>> that, if there continue to

>> be appeals in progress after six(6) months, then the Board shall not

>> delay any longer."

>>

>> The Committee then agreed to finalise processing the appeal that was in

>> progress after

>> which the Committee agreed to await further direction from the Board.

>>

>> Here then attached, for your copy, is the finalised Appeal Committee

>> report on the policy

>> compliance dashboard proposal AFPUB-2020-GEN-001-DRAFT01 that the Appeal

>> Committee has now finalised and has already submitted to the PDWG through

>> the RPD

>> mailing list as its ToR require.

>>

>> The Appeal Committee would like to bring to your attention that there are

>> two appeals also in

>> progress as listed in the AC timeline

>> https://afrinic.net/policy/appeal-committee#appeals that

>> are subject to ToR Section 3.3.4 and hence the AC awaits further

>> directions from the PDWG

>> and/or the Board.

>>

>> Regards,

>>

>> Dr Paulos B Nyirenda

>> AFRINIC Appeal Committee Member

>>

>>

>> ------- Forwarded message follows -------

>> Date sent:                  Thu, 18 Feb 2021 05:17:56 -0800

>> To:                             P Nyirenda <paulos at sdnp.org.mw>

>> From:                      0;   chair at afrinic.net

>> Subject:                     A ppeal Committee status

>> Copies to:                  pdwg-appeal-commi ttee at afrinic.net,

>> legal at afrinic.net

>>

>>

>> Dear Dr Nyirenda,

>>

>> We refer to the two recent resignations from the Appeal Committee.

>>

>> AFRINIC stands legally advised that in line with the AFRINIC Policy

>> Development Appeal Committee Terms of Reference, Version 2 (2017),

>> the Appeal Committee is a committee made up of five members.

>>

>> Since the committee is no longer properly constituted, the remaining

>> members cannot continue with their work until the committee is

>> re-constituted by the AFRINIC Board of Directors.

>>

>> We thank you for your understanding and your usual collaboration.

>>

>> Regards,

>> S. Moonesamy

>>

>> Board Chair, AFRINIC

>> Mobile: +230 5824 5410

>>

>>

>> --

>> This message has been scanned for viruses and

>> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is

>> believed to be clean.

>> ------- End of forwarded message -------

>>

>> ------- End of forwarded message -------

>>

>>

>>

>> --

>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.

>> https://www.avg.com

>> _______________________________________________

>> RPD mailing list

>> RPD at afrinic.net

>> 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/20210219/d813e685/attachment-0001.html>