Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

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

Patrick Okui pokui at psg.com
Thu Aug 20 11:23:51 UTC 2020


On 19 Aug 2020, at 16:52 EAT, Dr P Nyirenda wrote:


> 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 ?



Actually this does make sense to me and is normal procedure.

If I take a matter to court and file a complaint it is perfectly
reasonable for
my testimony to be one of the witness reports. If a group (company,
family,
etc) take a matter to court their individual testimonies would be taken
into
account. I do not think you’re implying that someone can’t be an
eyewitness
just because they filed the case. Similarly, if someone is campaigning
for a
political position, they also get to vote. Any eligible people in their
households also get to vote and in case of secret ballots it causes
drama when
they decide to vote against the person in their household campaigning
but I
digress.

Clearly you and the appeals committee felt different, and from the
report you
actually expected 3 extra emails to support the original complaint. i.e
a joint
email written/signed by 3 extra people (different from the authors)
would not suffice
in your reading of the requirement. I guess the logic being to avoid
convening
over a disgruntled author’s opinion. This concept is more similar to
when
someone wants bail and they need to find a given number of sureties to
represent them. In that case one can’t be their own surety and indeed
close
associates or family members can be disqualified.

Irrespective of our differences on opinion on who the 3 people could be
I think
the larger issue is lack of a feedback loop in the appeals process.


1. There was no need for the entire committee to be convened over an
incomplete
appeal.

2. It’d be a simple matter for the first respondent (can even be an
automated
ticketing system) to the appeal to say “you’ve been assigned ID
xxxxx make
sure all future communication on this matter includes this ID. Also
ensure
that the 3 other people emailing to support your appeal use the same
ID”.

3. If somehow the fact that it was incomplete was missed it’d be easy
to say
xyz appeal was incomplete and not deliberated on. Find 3 other
people to
support your position and have them mail their comments. OR: XYZ is
still
incomplete and since the two weeks to file a complaint have elapsed
the
co-chairs decision stands.[*]

It is possible to update Noah's suggestions to say something long the
lines of
"the person filing the appeal should demonstrate in their appeal that
they have
met the criteria. Examples can be (but not limited to) links to mailing
list
emails or excepts from meeting minutes.". This would somewhat address
your
concerns about measurable goals. However, a simple communication that an
appeal
is incomplete and will not be deliberated by the committee can avoid a
lot of
the drama. Otherwise the process becomes overly complicated requiring
legal
people to phrase all communications and likely a committee that is
comprised of
lawyers.

In terms of way forward, I think that it's great that we have only
tested this
appeals process twice so far. I also think that it's great that AFRINIC
is
seeking feedback on the current governing terms.The current rules
governing the
committee are the TORs (whether one agrees with it or not). Therefore:

1. People should read Jordi's policy and decide if they agree or not and
provide feedback (or write a competing policy).

2. In the meantime, people should *also* provide feedback to AFRINIC via
the
channels that Madhvi reminded us to use. Even if that feedback is
"the TORs
should be scrapped for XYZ reasons."

--
patrick

[*] If we’re nitpicking about the 3 supporting people then the other
thing in the TORs
that will cause angst is the time to file an appeal isn’t
explicit on if the deadline
is to the first email on the matter or up to when an appeal is
considered “complete”



More information about the RPD mailing list