[rpd] Appeal Committee ToR Version 3

[Fernando Frediani]

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 benefit Community or the RIR and they must be repealed, however it is 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

>