<div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On 3 Aug 2017 8:10 a.m., "Andrew Alston" <<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.c<wbr>om</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="m_-4674915410191892670m_-3732261109116157362m_-2767467239671603858quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-GB">
<div class="m_-4674915410191892670m_-3732261109116157362m_-2767467239671603858m_8202618394793462189WordSection1"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"></span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Anyone ON continent is likely to be influenced by the policies themselves – unless you choose people entirely outside of the industry that is – and
such people will not have knowledge of the policy process or the policy content. That creates conflict of interest. I point out that this community clearly voted to say that conflict of interest must be dealt with in terms of the board – why should this
be any different? </span></p></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br>And anyone outside the continent could also be influenced indirectly by policies within our region. Also the issue here is not about people having knowledge about the policy, seat 1 and 2 suggests previous co-chairs and those can bring in the experience if needed. The issue here is for those on the appeal committee to objectively exercise their power to resolve a conflict. They would take time to understand what the conflict is and how they can work with the conflicting parties to resolve the conflict.<br><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="m_-4674915410191892670m_-3732261109116157362m_-2767467239671603858quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-GB"><div class="m_-4674915410191892670m_-3732261109116157362m_-2767467239671603858m_8202618394793462189WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> As for the board itself handling the appeal – this is a direct conflict as well, since the board has to ratify the proposal – and by asking them to handle the appeal as well, they are handling an appeal on a policy that they then have to
ratify. This simply cannot happen.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><br></span></p></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><div dir="auto"><br><br></div><div dir="auto">You fail to point out that by the time the policy proposal is undergoing an appeal, its still yet to be ratified as such the board would not be in a position to ratify it and thereby no direct conflict of interest as the proposal is not even yet before the board itself.<br><br></div><div>I will give an example of the review policy which was under last call period and the divergent community discussions around it led the co-chairs to send it back to list for further discussions. This policy proposal never even reached the board for ratification because the process allows for such periods like last call where issues that could be pending or improved are sorted. Again its this same community that enabled this.<br><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="m_-4674915410191892670m_-3732261109116157362m_-2767467239671603858quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-GB"><div class="m_-4674915410191892670m_-3732261109116157362m_-2767467239671603858m_8202618394793462189WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Policy appeals must be neutral in nature – totally divorced from impact by the policy, and indeed the proposed TOR’s state that any conflicted individual
shall be recused from considering the said proposal. So, let us look for example at the review policy (just as an example). Anyone who either works for an organisation who holds resources from AFRINIC or who directly holds resources from AFRINIC would automatically
be conflicted in this process – and you may well find you end up having to recuse the entire appeal committee, since anyone holding resources from AFRINIC under that policy is subject to review.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Appeals committees that are divorced from the issue are just good corporate governance, and this follows global standards for appeals.</span></p></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><div dir="auto"><br><br></div><div dir="auto">And such appeals committees can be constituted from members from within our own community. This is not rocket science.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br><br></div><div dir="auto"></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="m_-4674915410191892670m_-3732261109116157362m_-2767467239671603858quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-GB"><div class="m_-4674915410191892670m_-3732261109116157362m_-2767467239671603858m_8202618394793462189WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I’d also say that considering the very obvious deep divides on this continent, where at the microphone in 3 successive meetings, different individuals
have raised the divides in this community that seem to be based on geopolitical, linguistic and other divides, rather than policy content, it is even more critical that we find external individuals to arbitrate when it comes to these appeals – because it removes
the chance of people screaming that the appeals committee is biased based on the aforementioned factors. I fail to see the harm in avoiding the risk of bias.</span></p></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Let the board get policy makers outside the industry but from within this continent. Even the outsiders can be biased and compromised they are not Angels from goodness know where.<br><br></div><div>If there are divides in this community, let the board choose people who are far away from those divides that is if the board also believe there are such divisions that they would warranty some external parties.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Cheers</div><div dir="auto">Noah</div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div>
</div>