<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='background:white'><span style='color:#222222'>More independent processes are needed in general concerning AFRINIC’s operations. The integrity of all the board’s decisions are compromised by inside politics—not in the community’s best interest--and the appeal committees appears to be yet another attempt. Your proposal makes sense. It creates separation between the two for an unbiased re-evaluation of a previous decision. Doing so will also establish a standard of accountability the board will have to answer to external to itself. There will less opportunity to sweep things under the rug (as currently exemplified by the lack of published board findings and proceedings).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#888888;background:white'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#888888;background:white'>-Brian<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>