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

[rpd] clarify? - (Fwd) Adhoc Appeal Committee appointment

Owen DeLong owen at
Tue Mar 9 21:57:28 UTC 2021

>> I suggest stepping back a little to get a better understanding of the

>> circumstances:


>> (a) You are already a member of the "AFRINIC PDP Appeal Committee"

>> given

>> that you were invited and accepted to represent Seat 1 on the

>> AFRINIC Policy Development Appeal Committee.


>> (b) The members of the "AFRINIC PDP Appeal Committee"

>> representing Seat 4 and 5

>> resigned from the Committee.


>> (c) AFRINIC provided advice to the members of the "AFRINIC PDP

>> Appeal Committee"

>> after (b) occurred.

Mr. Chair, can you please clarify if AFRINIC provided this advice to the AC,
and if so on what authority they did so or if it was the board that provided
or was it the board that provided advice, and if so, can you clarify for the
community what that advice was and/or what was the basis for doing so?

>> (d) You received an email from the Board asking you whether the

>> Board could

>> could consider appointing you to an adhoc Appeal Committee.


>> I would like to thank you for seeking clarification about the terms of

>> reference of a committee before accepting an appointment to the

>> committee. There would not have been a thirst of information on Item

>> (c) if the question was asked in 2017 or 2018. The intention is to

>> find a way forward. At the moment there is a quorum issue as:


>> (i) The appointing body did not state what the quorum should be in

>> the terms of

>> reference; and

If the board did not set a quorum in the ToR, then the body is free to set
Its own definition of quorum. Absent the body setting a quorum count,
It is customary to consider a majority of the members of a small body
adequate quorum, thus since the body is currently 3 people, two is
sufficient to constitute quorum unless a different number is defined.

>> (ii) The "AFRINIC PDP Appeal Committee" is no longer constituted as

>> specified

>> in Section 2 of the terms of reference.

How do you figure this? The ToR specify that the committee should finish
Its work in the event of resignations if appeals are in progress and makes
no provision for the board to arbitrarily intervene.

Sections 3.3.4 and 3.4.1 of said ToR are very clear on the matter.

I remind you that these Terms of Reference were constructed entirely
by the AFRINIC board with minimal community input into the process.
As such, the board should make a strong effort to live by its own rules.

>> In normal circumstances I would have had a conversation with the Chair

>> of the committee. However, that is not possible as I don't know who

>> is the Chair of the "AFRINIC PDP Appeal Committee".

Have you tried asking the remaining members of the committee?

Is it really so hard to ask three people?

>> The concern which you raised is that your term has not yet

>> expired. There isn't any section in Committee's terms of reference

>> which specifies the term of a member of that Committee. Could you

>> please provide some information on the "my term has not expired"?

His term expires when the board replaces the committee (after any in-process
appeals are completed) or at the end of 3 years when the board is required
to replace the entire committee. This is also specified in the ToR section 3.3
Ironically titled “Terms”.

I won’t deny that the sentence structure and overall construction of the ToR
is a bit odd and could use some wordsmithing, but it does not make the
meaning unclear on this matter.

>> I don't see how "a well founded acceptable committee" is related to

>> the task of an Appeal Committee being "very heavy" or "very

>> demanding". Is it about the workload of the Committee? If that is

>> the case, I don't have any information about that as the Board did not

>> receive any feedback about workload.

I believe he means that it is serious work and that due consideration must
be given to ensuring fair due process when one seeks to tamper with the
structure and status of such a committee, but Paolos can clarify his meaning
If he wishes. Assuming that is what Paolos meant, I would most certainly
agree with him in this regard. There is no justification (or valid authority)
for the board to interfere with the continued functioning of the existing
appeal committee. If the board wishes to appoint new members once the
current docket is completed, they are free to do so. If they wish to change
the ToR after the current docket is completed, they are free to do so.
The are free to hold any new appeals until they appoint a new appeal
committee (though they must do so timely and post haste if they wish
to do so). All of that is within the bounds set by the existing ToR.

The current actions of the board seem to stray outside of the bounds
set by the ToR and I once again request that the board follow the rules
it has created for itself.



>> Regards,

>> S. Moonesamy


>> Board Chair, AFRINIC




> --

> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.




> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at


More information about the RPD mailing list