[rpd] measurable ? - Re: ToR Appeal Committee Review

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

The ToR are making a discriminatory interpretation of the PDP rules, setting the authors aside of the appeal.

The PDP explicitly says “An appeal can only be filed if it is supported by three (3) persons from the Working Group who have participated in the discussions”.

*** this is an objective fact:***

The PDP don't say "An appeal can only be filed if it is supported by three (3) persons from the Working Group who have participated in the discussions AND are different than co-authors".

That will be a discrimination. When you understand correctly the bottom-up approach and the definition of consensus, you understand than even a single author may be right in front of 150 voices against that believe that "they don't like a proposal". In that case, if the chairs don't declare consensus, that single author has the right to fill an appeal. The ToR deny that, which is against the definition of consensus and bottom-up approach.

We can find thousands of examples of why the authors can't be excluded as "supporters" of the appeal. If the PDP wanted to say "different" we should have written it very very very explicitly and the *only* way to change that is not a ToR, but the PDP process itself.

Even in a court, the one filling the appeal has the *same* rights than any other, it is very obvious.

Even in the other 3 RIRs (APNIC doesn't have an appeal process), the authors are *part* of the appeal with the *same* rights!

Please read the policy proposal for further details, it doesn't make any sense to repeat it here again and again.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 18/8/20 17:57, "Dr P Nyirenda" <paulos at sdnp.org.mw> escribió:

    On 18 Aug 2020 at 15:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:  

    > Hi Paulos, Noah, all, 
    > 
    > The PDP is very clear, there is no need for any reference terms which
    > are discriminating authors vs participants. Further to that, the only
    > way you can change that is by means of the PDP itself, not by anyone
    > else different that the community defined rules. 

    The rules are already well defined in Section 3.5 of the AFRINIC PDP and, yes, they set 
    minimum requirements for filing an appeal and anyone who does not follow the rules will fail 
    to successfully file an appeal. That is not discrimination.

    Regards,

    Paulos
    ======================
    Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
    NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD
    http://www.nic.mw
    Tel:  +265-(0)-882 089 166
    Cell: +265-(0)-888-824787
    WhatsApp: +265-(0)-887386433


    > 
    > I suggest reading the new policy proposal: 
    > 
    > https://www.afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2020-gen-004-d1#proposal 
    > 
    > 
    > Regards,
    > Jordi
    > @jordipalet
    >  
    >  
    > 
    > El 17/8/20 12:20, "Dr P Nyirenda" <paulos at sdnp.org.mw> escribió:
    > 
    >     Noah,
    > 
    >     These seem to be good suggestions, however, they will only be useful to the Appeal 
    >     Committee if they are precisely measurable.
    > 
    >     I would hence like you to consider measurability of the suggestions and then frame them in a 
    >     way that they get to be precisely measurable for accurate decision making clearly  visible to 
    >     everyone.
    > 
    >     Regards,
    > 
    >     Paulos
    >     ======================
    >     Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
    >     NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD
    >     http://www.nic.mw
    >     Tel:  +265-(0)-882 089 166
    >     Cell: +265-(0)-888-824787
    >     WhatsApp: +265-(0)-887386433
    > 
    > 
    > 
    >     On 17 Aug 2020 at 7:31, Noah wrote:
    > 
    >     > Hi There,
    >     > 
    >     > Current appeal text contains below section.
    >     > 
    >     > /
    >     > An appeal can only be filed if it is supported by three (3) persons from the Working Group who 
    >     > have participated in the discussions.
    >     > /
    >     > 
    >     > Can the above section of the current appeal process be removed and replaced with.
    >     > 
    >     > "An appeal can only be filed if it part of the working group had already indicated support or lack of 
    >     > support for the said proposal under discussion".
    >     > 
    >     > OR
    >     > 
    >     > "An appeal can only be filed if the appellant      
    >     > as part of the appeal submission  provides example text from the mailing list discussions, the 
    >     > working group support or lack of support for the said proposal under discussion".
    >     > 
    >     > The rationale is after all each policy proposal tends to have some significant support or lack of 
    >     > support from the working group up until an appeal is submitted against the proposal by 
    >     > dissatisfied members of the working group.
    >     > 
    >     > This is also such that a potentially biased appeals committee does not use the excuse of 3 
    >     > persons supporters condition as a loophole to throw a potential appeal under the bus like we have 
    >     > witnessedin the recent past.
    >     > 
    >     > Cheers,
    >     > Noah
    >     > 
    >     > On Thu, 13 Aug 2020, 20:07 AFRINIC Communication, <comms at afrinic.net > wrote:
    >     >     Dear colleagues,
    >     >     
    >     >     The AFRINIC  Board of Directors would like to request for the community´s inputs regarding 
    >     >     possible improvements to the Terms of  Reference (ToR) of the Appeal Committee (please 
    >     >     see the terms here (https://www.afrinic.net/policy/appeal-committee#tor). In the period 
    >     >     2017-2020, the Appeal Committee adjudicated on the Conflict Resolution section of the 
    >     >     AFRINIC Policy Development Process (PDP)  on two occasions.
    >     >     
    >     >     We invite you to fill in the online questionnaire available <English 
    >     >     https://vox.afrinic.net/416936?lang=en> and <French https://vox.afrinic.net/416936?lang=fr> 
    >     >     by latest 13 September 2020. The consultation period will close on 13 September 2020.
    >     >     
    >     >     At the end of the consultation period, feedback from the respondents will be assessed  and 
    >     >     considered where applicable, before it is  used to make the necessary improvements.
    >     >     
    >     >     AFRINIC  Board of Directors
    >     >     
    >     >     .......................
    >     >     
    >     >     Chers collègues,
    >     >     
    >     >     Le Conseil d'administration d'AFRINIC souhaite solliciter les contributions de la 
    >     >     communauté concernant d'éventuelles améliorations des termes de référence (ToR) du 
    >     >     Comité d'appel (veuillez consulter les termes ici 
    >     >     (https://www.afrinic.net/policy/appeal-committee#tor). Au cours de la période 2017-2020, le 
    >     >     Comité d'appel s'est prononcé à deux reprises sur la section de résolution des conflits du 
    >     >     processus d'élaboration des politiques (PDP) de l'AFRINIC.
    >     >     
    >     >     Nous vous invitons à remplir le questionnaire en ligne disponible <Anglais 
    >     >     https://vox.afrinic.net/416936?lang=en> > et <Français 
    >     >     https://vox.afrinic.net/416936?lang=fr> au plus tard le 13 septembre 2020. La période de 
    >     >     consultation prendra fin le 13 septembre 2020.
    >     >     
    >     >     À la fin de la période de consultation, les commentaires des répondants seront évalués et 
    >     >     pris en compte, le cas échéant, avant d'être utilisés pour apporter les améliorations 
    >     >     nécessaires.
    >     >     
    >     >     Le Conseil d'administration d'AFRINIC
    >     >     
    >     >     
    >     >     _______________________________________________
    >     >     RPD mailing list
    >     >     RPD at afrinic.net
    >     >     https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
    > 
    > 
    > 
    >     -- 
    >     This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
    >     https://www.avg.com
    > 
    > 
    >     _______________________________________________
    >     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



**********************************************
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.