Policy Development Process - last call

Hi,

> 		Policy Development Process in RIPE
> 			  Version 2

short note/warning: the website still points to the 1st version only at
<http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/>

>       The whole process is summarised in a diagram, attached as Appendix A.
>       This diagram contains timelines for the various stages of the process.
>       These timelines are meant as defaults, or minimum timelines: individual
>       proposals may define their own timelines.

For the sake of easier reading the timelines should appear in the text as well.

>       2.1 Proposal Phase
> 
>           Discussions may be started by anyone at any time. Participants are 
> 	  welcome to discuss broad ideas as well as make detailed policy
> 	  proposals. Proposals are made using a Policy Proposal template
> 	  [TEMPLATE Appendix B]. 
> 	  The template forms a structure for the proposal. It details the
> 	  reason for the proposal and any perceived consequences of the
> 	  proposal.

The introductory text suggested that also "recommendations to the community"
would fall in the "policy" category. Thinking of various precedent in the
DNS WG, should this process now be the only way to publish a RIPE document?

>           draft document for community review and comment. There may be multiple
> 	  iterations of a draft document if there is significant comment and
> 	  change suggested.
> 
> 	  The discussion phase will have a limited time period, but not less
> 	  then four weeks.

Does this mean every single, all or the latest version of the document must
be up for >= 4 weeks? Also the diagram suggests that a document only appears
at the end of the Discussion Phase, making that a time where the WG decides
to "adopt" the proposal as a work item.

>       2.3 Review Phase
> 
> 	  Following the conclusion of the comment period the RIPE Working

The term "comment period" has not yet been defined. Is it the first 4 weeks
of the Review Phase?

> 	  Group Chair determines whether the working group has reached

Here and in the diagram it says "Chair" where the plural might be more
appropriate at least for some groups.

> 	  consensus. If consensus has not been reached then the proposer may
> 	  decide to withdraw the proposal. Alternatively, a new round of
> 	  discussion and documentation may occur.

How far back in the diagram would that point? I guess "documentation" means
that before further "comment" there needs to be "discussion" to produce
a new draft version. Should there be a limit for the number of iterations
or at least a chair's (or chairs') judgement on this - to prevent resource
exhaustion?

>       2.4 Concluding Phase
> 
>           When the RIPE Working Group Chair determines that the working group
> 	  has reached a consensus, s/he moves the proposal to a Last Call for 
> 	  comments. The Last Call announcement is posted to the working group 
> 	  mailing list, the Last Call announcements mailing list and Chairs of 
> 	  all working groups. At the end of the Last Call period the working 
> 	  group chairs will decide together whether a consensus has been
> 	  achieved 

I suggest that there be a way to fold in last call comments without reiterating
the whole process ...

>    3. Appeal Process
> 
>       [Having a documented process in place creates the need for an oversight
>        function. In case there excists doubt wether the process has been
>        followed, there is a need for an appeal procedure.
> 
>        Input is sought on how to implement this.]

... which will be helpful in this particular case.

The default RIPE Last call period should be 4 weeks IMHO.

-Peter