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

[Noah]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020, 14:06 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD, <rpd at afrinic.net>
wrote:


>

> According to the PDWG Appeal Committee Terms of Reference

> (https://afrinic.net/policy/appeal-committee#tor) section 5.2(d), the

> appeal has

> not met the requirements for filing. “The complaint must be supported by

> three (3)

> persons who have participated in the discussions relating to the matter

> under

> appeal.



This is what I suggested to be scrapped off since it doesn't make sense at
all.

By the time a member of the working group submits an appeal for or against
a proposal, sure the working group members must have deliberated about it
with some for or against the proposal.

So an appeal against or for should not be suspended because of lack of 3
supporters of the said appeal if indeed the discussion followed the pdp
process to a point where an appeal is lodged.

FWIW,  its also rather counterproductive for the appeal committee after
notificing such nitty gritty to fail in engaging an appellant after
receiving the appeal submission, to immediately ensure such compliance but
rather wait for weeks only to come back and pronounce a decision on an
appeal without even considering it just because the appellant  failed to
meet some requirements.

Noah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200820/b784bbd9/attachment.html>