Re: Appeal procedure for DAM actions
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 11:17:02PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 15276 March 1977, Karsten Merker wrote:
> > > 4. NM Committee review
> > > ----------------------
> > > The NMC has 7 days to review the received material and discuss the
> > > matter in
> > > private. They are expected not to solicit further input, as this is not an
> > > inquiry but a peer review of the DAM decision.
> > I'm not sure whether I understand correctly what exactly is meant
> > by "[The members of the NMC] are expected not to solicit further
> > input" - does that mean that the members of the NMC are not
> > allowed to ask questions about facts outside/above those
> > explicitly presented by DAM and those contained in the written
> > appealer statement, i.e. the NMC members are forbidden to do any
> > sort of research about the situation on their own? If yes, that
> > would seem like an inappropriate limitation to me.
> As written, it is not an inquiry. But a check of the decision
> that DAMs have made. NMC should not need to dig around for
> long. And should not be forced by someone claiming "but if you
> only ask this one more, or this one, then you MAY see the
> light". Nah. Its both sides giving their views, and the NMC
> deciding on that. End. If one side can not present enough to
> support their case, then their case fails, it shouldn't be up
> to the NMC to dig out the stuff for them.
That point would be perfectly valid if DAM would not be part of
the NMC and would not take part in the discussions, so that the
NMC members would only decide on the written statements from both
sides. This isn't the case here, though. DAM is part of the
NMC, takes part in the discussions and can (and probably will,
because that's just natural in such a situation) provide further
input from their viewpoint based on how the discussion proceeds,
but that's (for obvious reasons) not the case for the appealer,
so this causes an asymmetry in the procedure. Denying the the
Non-DAM NMC members the right to inquire about things intensifies
> > > 5. NM-Committee vote
> > > --------------------
> > > After 7 days discussion, or earlier if unanimously agreed by the NMC,
> > > NM-Frontdesk will ask the secretary to conduct a secret, 3-day-long vote,
> > > with the following options:
> > >
> > > 1. Uphold the decision of the DAMs
> > > 2. Overturn the decision of the DAMs
> > >
> > > Committee members otherwise involved in a case must abstain.
> > > DAM members are not allowed to partake in the vote.
> > >
> > > A simple majority decides the vote; in the event of a tie, the decision is
> > > not overturned.
> > >
> > > Abstained or absent votes are not counted. If more than half of the NMC
> > > (excluding DAM) abstain or do not vote, the decision is not overturned.
> > [Description of how the vote can turn out bad for the person]
> Well. I see your point. But I do disagree with your solution:
> > Therefore the clause "If more than half of the NMC (excluding DAM) abstain
> > or do not vote, the decision is not overturned" would IMHO need to be
> > removed completely from the rules.
> I don't think so. We don't want to end up with a system where,
> say, you "just" put pressure on a dozen people to abstain, then
> have "your friend" vote overturn, and boo, all is fine again.
I suppose exactly the same argument could be made from the
"other" side as well, couldn't it? As I have shown in my
previous mail in this thread, with the rule above in force
"putting pressure o a dozen people to abstain" can have the
effect that what would otherwise be a clear unanimous repeal of
DAM's original decision would end up as a confirmation of DAM's
> So while I agree there might be possible improvements in how the vote goes, I
> don't think just deleting that one sentence is it.
I beg to differ :). I have taken a look at Ian's proposal with
using sqrt(people allowed to vote) instead of a fixed ratio of
50%. That doesn't solve the general underlying problem of "not
voting" generating a bias against the appealer, but it makes such
a negative effect less likely, so I would consider this at least
a lot better than a fixed 50% ratio.
Gem. Par. 28 Abs. 4 Bundesdatenschutzgesetz widerspreche ich der Nutzung
sowie der Weitergabe meiner personenbezogenen Daten für Zwecke der
Werbung sowie der Markt- oder Meinungsforschung.