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

[Dr P Nyirenda]

Mmmmm ... more verbose ... but that's ok on the RPD, I guess, just 2 points ....

1. Since you are not mentioning "authors" any more, I conclude that you have given up on
that issue, so then we can close that section.

2. On supporters, you seem to be saying in what you, Jordi, have written here below that if
you, Jordi,  were in a forum (like this one) and you made a complaint or you made a
proposal,  then in the course of the discussion, if the chair of the forum called for supporters
of your proposal then you, Jordi,  would stand up and say I, Jordi,  support myself !

Does that make sense to you, Jordi ?

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 19 Aug 2020 at 11:35, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:


> ToR are misinterpreting the CPM:

>

> "c) The complainant must discuss the matter with the Chair(s) of the PDWG and at

> least 3 other members of the PDWG. The complainant may hold these discussions

> in public on the RPD mailing list to engage the entire PDWG."

>

> Then:

>

> "d) The complaint must be supported by three (3) persons who have participated in the

> discussions relating to the matter under appeal. ******(That is, three (3) persons other****** 8

> than the complainant.)9"

>

> Also, the ToR footnotes:

> 8 "An appeal can only be filed if it is supported by three (3) persons from the Working Group who

> have participated in the discussions."

> 9 The term "supported by" implies that the supporters and the complainant are distinct persons.

>

> So, if the complaint is one of the authors, the ToR is discriminating them *against* what is said by the PDP. If the complaint is not one of the authors, it is discriminating the complaint.

>

> And now: When the "existing rules" (ToR I guess?) have been passed the PDP? Facts, please.

>

>

> Regards,

> Jordi

> @jordipalet

>

>

>

> El 19/8/20 10:24, "Dr P Nyirenda" <paulos at sdnp.org.mw> escribió:

>

>     On 18 Aug 2020 at 18:56, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:

>

>     > 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".

>

>     As far as I can see, Section 5 on filing in the ToRs of the Appeal Committee does not

>     memtion authors, not even "co-authors", so, where are you getting this?

>

>     In addition, as far as I can see, Section 3.5 of the AFRINIC PDP does not mention authors

>     either, so, where are you getting all this?

>

>     So, is this a request to change the rules just because one or so person(s) are aggrieved in a

>     case where they did not follow the existing rules and just because their submissions reach a

>     verbose level of 9 or above?

>

>     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

>

>

>

>     >

>     > 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.

>     >

>     >

>     >

>     >

>     > _______________________________________________

>     > RPD mailing list

>     > RPD at afrinic.net

>     > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

>

>

>     --

>     This message has been scanned for viruses and

>     dangerous content by MailScanner, and is

>     believed to be clean.

>

>

>     _______________________________________________

>     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

>

> --

> This message has been scanned for viruses and

> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is

> believed to be clean.

>




--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.