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

[Patrick Okui]

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”