Search RPD Archives
[rpd] APPEAL AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF CONSENSUS DECLARED BY THE POLICY LIAISON TEAM AND THE BOARD ON THE SELECTION OF PDWG CO-CHAIRS
ish at lsl.digital
Fri May 7 15:04:31 UTC 2021
On 22/04/2021 06:36, lucilla fornaro wrote:
> As we can all see, it is true that the CPM (3.5) openly mentions the
> appeal against the co-chairs, but it doesn’t forbid other forms of
> appeals. Furthermore, the appeal reports a serious matter that should be
> properly investigated. This is the only way to go through it.
The definition  of the Appeal Committee on the AFRINIC site states:
« The AFRINIC Policy Development Appeal Committee, or the Appeal
Committee, is a committee appointed by the AFRINIC Board, intended
to adjudicate on appeals in terms of the Conflict Resolution
section of the AFRINIC Policy Development Process (PDP). Any such
appeal will involve a disagreement regarding the actions taken by
the Chair(s) of the Policy Development Working Group (PDWG). »
It is clearly stated that an appeal should involve a disagreement
regarding the actions taken by the Chair(s) of the PDWG.
> In particular, I believe that the declaration of the consensus by the
> Board of Directors goes beyond their authority.
You believe that the declaration of the consensus by the BoD goes beyond
their authority, because this is not specified in the CPM, right? But
then, it is also not specified in the CPM that the Appeal Committee
should listen to appeals against the BoD. Yet, you mentioned in your
email that since the CPM does not forbid such appeals, meaning since it
is not written, you find it the only way to go through it.
I am trying to reconcile two contradictory statements. On one side, you
say the BoD can't declare the consensus because it is not specified so
in the CPM. However, you also admit that it is not written in the CPM
for the Appeal Committee to listen to appeals against the BoD but you
are okay with it.
What makes you be okay with one but not the other?
More information about the RPD