Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Appeal Committee ToR Version 3
yakmutd at googlemail.com
Fri Jul 16 21:41:13 UTC 2021
My take here:
1. I see that the Board has demonstrated some significant high
handedness here, by being averse to robust discussions and that is why
they refuse to put the ToR forward at the initial stage.
2. I can't understand the caution the board is exercising, when the
whole of this process is about the community, not a conclave of some
3. So many interests is important, this way you remove tendencies for
people to gyrate towards being despotic. However, one is beginning to
see such character in the action of the board in most recent times. This
has been signposted by forcing a tenure for the current co-chairs
against good conscience.
4. Dissolving the AC and coming out with new ToRs at the worst of times
within the AfriNIC smacks of lack of sensitivity and sincerity.
5. If the Board wants to be impartial to the possible outcomes of an
appeal, I will suggest that the AC should constitute:
a. a former board member but not chosen by the Board, but nominated
by the a community member and seconded.
b. 6 elected members (former co-chairs inclusive) of the community
with proven capacity and tendency to be objective.
6. the membership of the AC should be 7 and 5 should be quorum to
determine matters. The quorum of 3 can easily be influenced.
Finally we shouldn't be afraid of elections. It is the lack of it, that
is currently causing the legitimacy crisis still affecting the functions
of the PWDG.
On 16/07/2021 5:36 pm, Fernando Frediani wrote:
> Seems the Board really erred in not to circulate circulate it before
> is approval, such importance and impact it has on PDWG.
> I can totally understand the Board caution on taking much of the stuff
> that is said in the PDWG into consideration because I am sure there
> are so many interests involved in these discussions that not necessary
> benefit Community or the RIR and they must be repealed, however it is
> also necessary that Board not to be so closed as it seems to have been
> in recent times maybe in the believe they know stuff better, know what
> they are doing, have enough understanding of PDWG business.
> What would happen if the PDWG resolves to pass a proposal to detail in
> the CPM the composition of the Appeal Committee thus invalidating what
> this ToR says (if it is kept this way). Would Board deny its
> ratification with justification of "legal advice" again because it
> simply doesn't like it ? We can avoid that scenario with more
> cooperation between Board and PDWG members.
> Finally to resume the main points about new AC composition here a few
> points from my point of view:
> - I don't have a problem with the Board choosing some of the AC members.
> - There is no reason or justification to restrict ex Board members to
> only Chair or Vice-chair person. Basically any former member of the
> Board should be considered.
> - ASO-AC or Governance Committee representatives are so far something
> without much justification of why them. Need to improve that.
> - At least 2 seats in the AC should be for members from the Community.
> It does not need to be restricted only to ex Co-Chairs although that
> would be a pretty logical choice in many cases, but it could also be
> experienced members of community.
> - Owen suggestion that current co-chairs to choose two former
> co-chairs doesn't make sense. The people who will be judged to choose
> their own judge ?
> - I am not convinced electing the Community members by PDWG is a good
> thing at this stage. I would have no problem to leave this task to the
> Board for now.
> On 16/07/2021 07:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
>> Fully agree, very good perspective.
>> Awaiting for the Board inputs on all our recent questions and inputs.
>> El 15/7/21 23:40, "Owen DeLong via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net> escribió:
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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.
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> 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 afrinic.net
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
More information about the RPD