[rpd] Appeal Committee ToR Version 3

Fri Jul 23 20:22:07 UTC 2021

I just want to point out that the Board hasn't stated anything so far 
about this problem with ToR Version 3 and want to find out if that will 
happen and how this can be fixed.

I hope that Board just don't ignore it believe it is their power to do 
stuff they feel like without having to explain to anyone else. This is a 
wide issue that affects different key actors and cannot just follow as 
it is.

Fernando

On 16/07/2021 13:36, 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 benefit Community or the RIR and they must be repealed, however it is 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.
>
> Regards
> Fernando
>
> 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.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> @jordipalet
>>
>> 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 
>> 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 afrinic.net
>>      https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>>
>>
>> **********************************************
>> IPv4 is over
>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> http://www.theipv6company.com
>> 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
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>