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

[rpd] New Terms of Reference for the Policy Development Appeal Committee Published

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at
Thu Jul 15 00:07:38 UTC 2021

Hello Jordi

I have to disagree with you about the decisions taken by AC have to be
by consensus. They decide by majority and in my view is expected they do
that day as they have a pretty limited number of members plus the fact
that decision (which is final) must be as much objectives as possible
should the prior one have left doubts about it. Knowing consensus is not
unanimity if 3 members of the AC think in one way and 2 in another way
how will the consensus will be determined ? Who will be in charge to
determine it ? That's why it is appropriate for a body as AC to decide
by simply majority of its members. Process in the PDWG done by us
community is a different thing and why have pretty different working.


On 14/07/2021 14:00, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:


> Hi all,


> The new ToR at least don’t violate so explicitly the PDP as the

> previous one.


> I’ve a problem however with decisions following majority. That doesn’t

> make sense to me. All the work in the PDP (and the AC is part of it)

> is done following consensus. How then the AC now is changed to work

> with “democracy”?


> Finally, point 3 it is a bit irrational in my opinion. If the

> co-chairs erred in their decision about consensus, then the AC is

> actually changing that decision. Yes, you can say that this is an

> “indirect” consequence, but actually is very “direct”, and in fact,

> 3.5.2 of the PDP say “The Appeal Committee may direct that the

> Chair(s) decision be annulled if the Policy Development Process has

> not been followed.”, so clearly, if by any reason the decision of the

> co-chairs is erred as confirmed by the AC, the AC duty is to change that.


> Otherwise, if the Board is willing to change that, then it will be a

> new Board violation of the PDP, which can only be done by mean of a

> policy proposal reaching consensus.


> Regards,


> Jordi


> @jordipalet


> El 14/7/21 17:54, "AFRINIC Policy Liaison" <policy-liaison at

> <mailto:policy-liaison at>> escribió:


> Dear Colleagues,


> Please be advised that the new Terms of Reference for the Policy

> Development  Appeal Committee has been published


> (

> <>) as per the Board

> Resolution

> 202107.622*(***

> <>*).*


> The AFRINIC Policy Development Appeal Committee, or the Appeal

> Committee, is a committee appointed by the AFRINIC Board, intended to

> adjudicate 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).


> The AFRINIC Board at its meeting held on *08 July 2021* resolved to

> revoke the current Terms of Reference for the Appeal Committee and

> replace them with new Terms of Reference.


> As a consequence of the above, the Appeal Committee that was

> reconstituted by the Board on *14 April 2021* was dissolved.


> The new version makes the required provision for**Section 3.5(1) of

> AFRINIC’s Consolidated Policy Manual.


> We invite you all to take note**of its scope with regards to the

> composition, term and duty of the committee.


> The reconstitution of the Appeal Committee is currently ongoing so

> that the current appeals can be assessed.


> Yours Sincerely,


> AFRINIC Policy Liaison Team.


> policy-liaison at <mailto:policy-liaison at>


> --

> AFRINIC Policy Liaison.

> t: +230 403 51 00 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic |

> | |


> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list

> RPD at



> **********************************************

> IPv4 is over

> Are you ready for the new Internet ?


> The IPv6 Company


> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged

> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive

> use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty

> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of

> this information, even if partially, including attached files, is

> strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you

> are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying,

> distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if

> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be

> considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original

> sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list