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

[rpd] Appeal Committee ToR Version 3

Sun Jul 25 18:47:00 UTC 2021

Dear Owen and Community.



On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 10:36 PM Owen DeLong via RPD <rpd at>

> 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



Website <>, Weekly Bulletin
<> UGPortal
<> PGPortal

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list