Search RPD Archives
[rpd] New Terms of Reference for the Policy Development Appeal Committee Published
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Thu Jul 15 07:09:42 UTC 2021
Thinking twice on this … I fully agree with all the inputs from Fernando. It will be good to hear also other participants from the community.
I understand that the composition of the AC is a complete decision of the Board, unless the community changes the PDP (which I think will be the right thing), and then we decide a composition such as:
2-3 members from the board, not just ex-members, not just ex-chairs or vice-chairs.
2-3 members from the community, I will suggest also here ex-co-chairs
Probably it is good that the total number of members is odd (5).
If the decisions are taken by voting then the quorum for meetings and decisions must be an odd number of participants (3 or 5).
I don’t understand why the governance committee should be involved on this, neither the ASO-AC.
It is also very clear that AC members can’t be co-authors or involved in any of the discussions of the decisions under appeal. They need to be recused on all the discussions or step down from the AC. Otherwise, it may happen that an AC member has a clear “personal view” on the decision, which it is a clear bias.
It will be very important to have the Board inputs on all those points and if they believe the ToR v3 should be re-considered or not.
If the Board believes that the inputs from the community are not relevant, then they should tell us, and the community must step in to change the PDP on this specific point, so no ToR is needed at all.
El 15/7/21 7:01, "Fernando Frediani" <fhfrediani at gmail.com> escribió:
Please find below my view of this just published ToR.
- I may be wrong but this version of the ToR doesn't seem to have circulated in PDWG prior to its approval by Board Resolution. Although this is not mandatory is it certainly a bad thing such is the importance and affect it has on us all from community and how the PDWG works.
- In 1, b) why one of the seats has been reserved only to Chair or Vice-Chair of the Board ? In which way other members of the Board are different from the Board Chair or Vice-Chair? Are they less fitted to serve in the AC ?
I think it may be a good thing to have 1 Board representative in the AC, but it doesn't need to be that restricted to only Chair or Vice-Chair. This is strange at minimal to say.
- Why there has been no seat at all for Community members, specially to consider ex Co-chairs which certainly may have a fair amount of experience to serve in the AC ?
In this ToR all 3 members of AC have a direct or indirect relation to membership elected members and not even space for choosing a experienced person from the Community if that person is not currently an elected member of Board, ASO-AC or Governance Committee.
- I didn't understand very well the rational to have someone from ASO-AC as a member of the Appeal Committee. It doesn't specify if from the entire ASO-AC or only from the AfriNic ASO-AC selected members. If the last case there is one of the three that is already appointed by the Board. Would it be the case that person also be considered as well along of the person already appointed from the Board, if not then there would be only 2 possible names for the seat which is quiet restrict.
- In the line of the previous point reducing the number of AC seats from 5 to 3 in the current times with several appeals to be analyzed increases the changes the AC can have difficulties to deliver its job with impartiality and be less susceptible to tentative of external pressure.
- It is quiet obvious but in the try to simply the ToR may be good to keep making clear enough that if a member of the appeal committee is author or co-author of the a proposal which becomes subject to appeal, this member of the AC must recuse himself from the deliberations.
- I think the last point (3) was a good one and make it clearer in order to avoid doubt about the duty and prerogatives of the Appeal Committee and that in no way substitutes the PDWG or its Co-Chairs in the consensus process.
There I urge the Board of Directors of AfriNic to review this ToR before selecting the new AC members, take in consideration the mentioned points above and publish a revised version of the ToR with improvements that can give more flexibility in composing the AC and open to more possibilities of choosing experienced people to serve.
On 14/07/2021 12:46, AFRINIC Policy Liaison wrote:
Please be advised that the new Terms of Reference for the Policy Development Appeal Committee has been published
(https://afrinic.net/policy/appeal-committee ) as per the Board Resolution 202107.622 (https://www.afrinic.net/board/meeting/2021#r622).
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.
AFRINIC Policy Liaison Team.
policy-liaison at afrinic.net
AFRINIC Policy Liaison.
t: +230 403 51 00 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w:www.afrinic.net
facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD