Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Response to the questions about the Appeal Committee
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Mon Mar 22 13:14:52 UTC 2021
Keep things simple in this case means not disputing the interpretation
of the legal adviser which is not an option given the current situation
and the multiple concerns that have been raised.
By the explanation below "in the absence of the minimum number of
members required" the legal adviser believes there must always be all
members in the committee in order for it to take a decision. I would
like to understand what analogy he/she used from any legal system to
conclude that. While some people may consider that in the absence of a
clear provision the committee may decide by any number of its members by
In any case I reinforce the request that once a new ToR moves forward to
be approved and published by the Board it is made available to this PDWG
for final comments, in order to all possible situations can be clarified
avoiding any further confusion in the future. Thanks for sharing the
Board meeting minutes. 202006.13 in that case mentions a public
consultation for a new ToR for a month but that doesn't necessarily mean
the candidate version may be shared with PDWG **prior** to its approval
and publishing by the Board.
On 22/03/2021 07:30, S. Moonesamy wrote:
> Dear Mr Frediani,
> You raised a concern about your questions going unanswered. There was
> the following paragraph in the email at
> The Board of Directors acted promptly and was legally advised that,
> in the absence of an expressed provision to that effect (i.e. quorum)
> in the Appeal Committee's ToR, all five (5) members of the Appeal
> Committee, including any designated chairperson thereof, constitute a
> quorum for the purposes of the Appeal Committee.
> The composition of the Appeal Committee is specified in Section 2 of
> the Terms of Reference. The terms of reference do not specific the
> minimum number of members required for the Committee to hear an
> appeal. The total number of members is the requirement given the
> absence of a clause about the minimum number of members.
> Section 2.3 is about conflict of interest. In my opinion, it is not
> applicable in this case as the resignation of the two committee
> members is not related to conflict of interest.
> As I see it, and I could be wrong, it is better to keep matters simple
> instead of getting into a debate with a lawyer on his/her legal
> opinion .
> Please see Action Item 202006.13  as it is related to your comment
> about the possible revision of the terms of reference.
> S. Moonesamy
> 1. A written objective interpretation or analysis of a legal position
> by a professional legal practitioner which is intended to be relied on
> by the person to whom it is addressed.
> 2. https://www.afrinic.net/ast/pdf/2021-miinutes/20210120-minutes.pdf
> Board Chair, AFRINIC
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD