On 12 Apr 2021, at 22:14, Peter Koch wrote:
… … This could be continued,
And it should in the context of the PDP review!
but I'll stop here to focus on Daniel's question.
That question remains: “Is it worth the effort to take a step back and
describe how we deal with conflicts and
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 10:31:17AM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> Again: Should we go beyond tweaking and fundamentally review the PDP appeals
> procedure?
the problem that lead us here seems to be much deeper than the
appeals part at the far end of the PDP.
One source of confusion is that
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
Daniel,
My own feeling is that the appeals process worked basically well enough
the first and only time it has been used, and that we would not be able
to get any significant gain by a redesign at this point.
Since we've only had 1 appeal since the process was actually documented
6+ years
Randy, colleagues,
we are already past the station where we wonder whether to review the
appeals process. Our chairs collective is already actively thinking
about significant tweaks. This is what prompted my reaction.
To make my point clearer let’s look at this from the perspective of
cost
Mirjam, Niall, WG Chairs,
Thank you for sharing your minutes about the Appeals Review and PDP
Evolution. As far as PDP appeals are concerned I have the impression
that the discussion is at the wrong level. We seem to be trying to tweak
the procedure without fully recognising some
