> On 7 Feb 2021, at 13:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list
> <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote:
>
> I attach the proposal
I do not support this proposal. It is nonsense. It would add more procedural
bloat, needless complexity and extra unwanted bureaucracy*. RIPE doesn’t
deserve or need something like this. There’s no justification for it either.
The proposal is fundamentally flawed because it shows a very poor understanding
of how the PDP works. If/when a consensus judgement gets appealed to the WG
Co-chairs Collective, anyone on the WGCC who was involved in that earlier
judgement recuses themselves from the appeal. This is common sense and doesn’t
need to be written down.
* Just think of endless opportunities for shed-painting and rat-holing over how
this supposedly independent and disinterested appeals panel gets selected, its
terms of reference, standing orders, what happens mid-appeal if the entire
panel disappear in a mysterious boating accident, decision-making when the
panel can’t reach consensus, etc, etc. For bonus points, what structure has to
be put in place to handle appeals about how this panel made its decisions or
how its members were appointed. Where would all this craziness stop?
