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

[rpd] Appeal Committee ToR Version 3

Wijdane Goubi goubi.wijdane at
Fri Jul 16 10:32:26 UTC 2021

Hello Owen,

I completely agree with what you said, and I believe that we should pay
close attention to the concerns you have mentioned, since they are
extremely valid and pertinent ones.

Furthermore, as previously stated, the fact that there are just three
appointees, one of whom is a former Board member, is highly concerning
indicating that this is definitely a mechanism for the Board to sway the
Appeal Committee's choices and decisions.

Finally, I'd like to point out that the board's rules of procedure clearly
do not constitute an independent court and are designed to make the board's
decisions affect the appeal's direction. This is counter to the principles
of an open, transparent, and bottom-up approach.


Le jeu. 15 juil. 2021 à 23:29, Owen DeLong via RPD <rpd at> a
écrit :

> This is a clear power grab by the board designed to allow them to place

> their thumb firmly on the scales of any appeal.


> I urge the community and membership to reject these terms of reference in

> favor of a terms that create an independent judiciary process to hear

> appeals rather than a rubber stamp for the boards desires.


> The sentence in (A)2 is utterly incompatible with the limitations

> expressed in (A)1.


> This is too small of a committee to provide valid representation of such a

> diverse community. A five member committee is relatively small, but

> probably about right for the tradeoffs of manageability. Ideally, IMHO, a

> five member committee with a quorum of 3 in order to transact business, but

> at least one from each of the last two groups described below.


> One former board member appointed by the current board.

> Two former co-chairs selected by the current co-chairs.

> Two active members of the PDWG elected by the PDWG.


> Each appeal committee member other than the former board member should

> serve a two year term. The former co-chairs should be elected in alternate

> years, as should the PDWG members.


> The former board member should be appointed by the board on an annual

> basis.


> Should the board decide that a need exists to reconstitute the committee,

> the board should hold special elections and the PDWG participants should

> elect two former co-chairs and 2 PDWG members. The candidates getting the

> highest votes in each category should serve the longest remaining term

> while the shorter remaining term will go to the candidate with the next

> highest vote count. The co-chairs shall appoint a new former board member.


> No changes should be possible to the committee during an appeal save by

> resignation of committee member(s). In the event of such resignations, the

> committee should proceed with the remaining members until only 2 are left.

> In the unlikely event that at least 3 of the 5 members resign during an

> appeal, non-AFRNIC appointees to the ASO AC should be requested to fill-in

> for the completion of any in-progress appeals.


> For the appeal committee to properly act in its appellate role in the

> process, it must remain an independent judiciary body not subject to the

> political whims of the day or to undue pressure or influence from the

> current board of trustees. The above recommendations are intended to

> achieve that end.


> If others feel there is a better way to achieve such an end, I welcome an

> active and open discussion of the alternatives. However, it is quite clear

> that the ToR presented by the board do not constitute an independent

> judiciary and are designed to make the boards thumb weigh heavily on the

> scales of any appeal. This is contrary to the very ideals of an open bottom

> up transparent process.


> Owen



> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at



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

More information about the RPD mailing list