[rpd] [Board-Discuss] BOARD Response: Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"

[Andrew Alston]

Mike,

No problem with any of this – my only issue here – is that the ambiguity comes about in the fact that the CPM commits to an appeals committee – and the CPM grants 2 weeks to launch an appeal.  It does not in any way shape or form state when – within those 2 weeks – the appeal can be filed.  It also goes on to state very clearly that the appeal must be filed with the appeals committee.  That means – that to meet this requirement a.) the appeals committee must be exist b.) must be available in the entire time in which the 2 week period is running so that at any time during those 2 weeks an appeal can be filed.

When the 2 weeks actually starts – in the context of your email below doesn’t actually matter as much – because the point is – if I issue a statement saying “the disagreement cannot be resolved”, I at that point, have the right under the CPM to immediately file a dispute – and without the a standing committee in existence I cannot do that.  If it is argued that “the disagreement cannot be resolved” gives sufficient time to constitute the committee – fine – what happens in the event of that statement coming 10 minutes into the debate between the co-chairs and the party with the disagreement?  That would give the board effectively 10 minutes to constitute the committee to fulfil their obligations.

My other major issue here is really simple – as of right now – the only argument I see from the board against appointing a standing committee rather than an adhoc one – is “we don’t want to”, and that doesn’t cut it in my view.  The fact is – the board as it is could be construed to be conflicted since they have to ratify policy once disputes are resolved.  If the board is appointing an adhoc committee each time, it opens the door to having the adhoc committee tailored to achieve a specific outcome based on the policy under dispute – a standing committee avoids this scenario.

So – if there is no standing committee – a.) the board needs to explain how to break the deadlock above and b.) at the very least needs to explain to the community the rationale behind refusing to grant such.

Andrew


From: Mike Silber [mailto:silber.mike at gmail.com]
Sent: 13 July 2017 17:26
To: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
Cc: AFRINIC Board of Directors' List <board at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Board-Discuss] BOARD Response: Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"

Apologies for top-posting, but there was little way to parse this situation of people talking past each other.

Having observed for a while, I think we can agree that there is some ambiguity in the drafting.

I also think we can accept that there needs to be some limitation on the time in which appeals can be lodged or issues once thought resolved could come back to haunt us. Two weeks seems reasonable to me.

I think that the ambiguity is that the term “decision” could be EITHER the action of the chair that causes the disagreement, OR the circumstance where the disagreement cannot be resolved.

So let me suggest a middle ground:

1) we accept we need some better wording to resolve the ambiguity; and

2) we accept (for now at least) that the inability to resolve the disagreement is the “decision” that triggers the clock. That inability to be evidenced by a statement from either the disagreeing (or is that disagreeable?) person or the PDWG Chair/s (with a copy to the other) indicating that the disagreement cannot be resolved.

3) the Board comes out with a clarifying statement indicating that it regards the inability to resolve the disagreement as the “decision” that triggers the clock

May not be the most elegant solution, but could work as an interim resolution while we look at amending the PDP?

Comments most welcome. Disagreement welcomed if respectful.

Mike


On 13 Jul 2017, at 14:15, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:

Sunday, not at all.

The PDP states in section 3.5 that the appeal shall be lodged within 2 weeks of *THE DECISION THAT IS DISAGREED WITH* being made – not the end of the negotiation with the PDP co-chairs.

So again – what you are saying is out of line with the process.

I quote:

A person who disagrees with the actions taken by the Chair(s) shall discuss the matter with the PDWG Chair(s) or with the PDWG. If the disagreement cannot be resolved in this way, the person may file an appeal with an Appeal Committee appointed by the AFRINIC Board of Directors. An appeal can only be filed if it is supported by three (3) persons from the Working Group who have participated in the discussions.
The appeal must be submitted within two weeks of the public knowledge of the decision. The Appeal Committee shall issue a report on its review of the complaint to the Working Group. The Appeal Committee may direct that the Chair(s) decision be annulled if the Policy Development Process has not been followed.

This text does NOT refer to when it is decided that the disagreement cannot be resolved through negotiation – it clearly states the appeal must be submitted within two weeks of the public knowledge of the DECISION – and since there is no DECISION formally taken by any party as to if negotiations have failed – the only DECISION is the one being appealed.

So – actually – there is a time limit on this – because if the two week period passes and the negotiations with the co-chairs are still ongoing – the ability to seek further redress is eliminated.

So please – read these things.

Furthermore – the CPM does NOT specify that there must be a week long period of negotiations before filing an appeal – it says the appeal can be lodged at ANY point in those two weeks – if the party feels that the negotiations have failed – that can be within 10 minutes.

Sorry – your proposal does not meet the requirements of the CPM – and I am at an absolute loss to understand why the board is so resistant to appointing a standing committee of appeal, other than “we don’t want to do it”



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170713/a8f79b4d/attachment-0001.html>