[rpd] Appeal Committee ToR Version 3

[Owen DeLong]

I suspect the board will most likely remain silent and simply implement it despite community opposition.

Then they will reject any attempts through the policy process to retake control of the AC.

This is the apparent nature of the current board. They are running amok.

Owen



> On Jul 23, 2021, at 13:22 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:

> 

> 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are so many interests involved in these discussions that not necessary benefit Community or the RIR and they must be repealed, however it is also necessary that Board not to be so closed as it seems to have been in recent times maybe in the believe they know stuff better, know what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

>> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd