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

[rpd] Appeal Committee ToR Version 3

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at
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.


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 benefit Community or the RIR and they must be repealed, however it is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> 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





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

>> 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



More information about the RPD mailing list