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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Noah,

 

I understand your points and I fully agree with you. However, I think is even easier than that.

 

The ToR are (with all the respect) like “wet paper” (not sure if this expression is understood in English, it means useless, not to be followed), because:
They are re-interpreting the PDP.
They have been developed by the board, not the community.
The board could do that in exceptional circumstances (which I even doubt, because the bylaws talk about resources, not the PDP), but they need to bring it to the PDP
The board didn’t bring the ToR to the PDP and followed the process. So, the ToR expired once after being introduced by the board, they didn’t submit as a draft policy proposal and reached consensus so to be incorporated in the PDP.
There is no need for ToR. The don’t exist in the IETF, neither other RIRs. The PDP is enough and should be self-contained: The appeal committee need to get an appeal, following 3.5 of the CPM and they need to do their job, not ask for the appellant for anything else.
 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 19/8/20 23:25, "Noah" <noah at neo.co.tz> escribió:

 

 

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

 

 

 



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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200820/c87f8cc7/attachment.html>