[rpd] I am stunned and dismayed...

[Owen DeLong]

This email from the board chair was sent to members-discuss only and not copied to RPD or community-discuss:


> Dear Dr Nyirenda, Resource Members,

> 

> The Board of Directors took cognizance of the status of the Appeal 

> Committee at its last meeting.  As I mentioned previously, I 

> understand that there is a thirst for information.   I don't think it 

> is a good practice to disclose the communication between a Board and 

> specific members of a Board Committee to a wider audience.  There are 

> obviously exceptions to that practice.

> 

> There were a few comments about a "gag order", i.e. an order that 

> prevents something from being publicly reported or discussed.  It is 

> somewhat of an exaggeration to use that term to describe the advice 

> which AFRINIC provided.

> 

> Section 3.1.2 of the terms of reference of AFRINIC Policy Development 

> Appeal Committee states that: "For seats 3, 4, and 5, they shall be 

> selected within the AFRINIC community, in a manner similar to 

> selection of the AFRINIC community representatives in the NRO 

> NC".  The time required for that selection process is approximately 88 days.

> 

> The second alternative is to constitute an adhoc Appeal 

> Committee.  The alternative would be in line with the Policy 

> Development Process.  The time required is approximately 32 days.

> 

> Regards,

> S. Moonesamy

> 

> Board Chair, AFRINIC  


First, I am stunned and dismayed that the chair’s focus appears to be on
Criticizing Dr. Nyirenda’s efforts towards transparency and accountability
rather than addressing the substantive issues he raised.

Second, it is a further demonstration of this line of thought that the chair
removed the community and policy lists from the target audience of his
message.

Mr. chair, what is not good practice here is to attempt to manipulate the
workings of a duly constituted committee outside of the view of the community
and without proper consultation of the community in the process.

Section 3.1.2 covers how the AC should be appointed when being constituted
or reconstituted. It is silent on the matters of how the committee proceeds once
it is constituted or reconstituted as those matters are covered elasewhere
in the TOR document.

Specifically 3.3.4 and 3.4.1.

The current remaining members of the appeal committee should be allowed
to continue their work and finish the current appeal(s) and then the board
can reconstitute the body as it sees fit.

As to Noah’s accusation that the appeal committee has violated section 4.4,
I do not believe that he or I have adequate visibility into the communications
between the AC and the board, but would welcome clarification from either
party. Certainly, if the AC has failed to provide the necessary communication
to the board about extending the timeline, that is a violation of the ToR and
should be rectified, but I think that issue is somewhat orthogonal to the board
Interferring with the continuing process of the committee currently under
discussion.

Owen