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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Patrick,

Tks for your inputs and just a quick note (to avoid repeating myself) on one of your last comments.

Note that even if my proposal or another one, doesn't reach consensus, the PDP is still contradicted by the current ToRs. It omits "others" for a good reason. I'm not going to repeat the argument of what consensus means and why the appeals should be handled with that in mind.

So, the actual situation, since several years ago is that the ToRs are invalid, because the board didn't complete the process stated by the bylaws and we all know that any modification (including contradicting interpretations) of the PDP, requires being passed by the community (by means of the PDP).

If we don't follow that (all, including the board) then we are in the wild and don't need a PDP or CPM anymore.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 20/8/20 13:29, "Patrick Okui" <pokui at psg.com> escribió:

    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”

    _______________________________________________
    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.