On 4/10/21 11:13 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
I have some implementation ideas already, similar but not identical to the RIPE NCC arbitration procedure. However before I get to those I would like to have some feedback on the general idea.
Wearing my arbiter hat, I agree that some of the challenges you describe here are not dissimilar from those encountered during the RIPE NCC Dispute Arbitration process. While there's by no means a 100% solution to them all there either (e.g. the risk of bad-faith use of the process to clog things up), it's indeed possible some elements of the arbitration process might be helpful to address points you outline. If that is, reform of the PDP appeals process is the path chosen, which I don't have enough familiarity with to have a view on. Keith
- Appeals require a large amount of community resources. - The process involves too many people. - The process involves people who have not consciously signed up for it, e.g. all WG chairs. - The process involves significant number of people who feel they have to recuse themselves. - Documentation and Openness of the process leave to be desired. Trying to apply incremental improvements to the existing procedure will not solve these significant shortcomings. Therefore I suggest to make more fundamental changes that do address these shortcomings. Here are three generic suggestions: 1) There should be a higher threshold to make an appeal because appeals are costly to the community. 2) Appeals should be handled by a small number of people who commit to handling it properly within a defined time line because someone has to take responsibility. 3) Appeals should be fully and transparently documented from the first submission until the conclusion, because this is the RIPE standard.
