You are here: Home > Publications > RIPE Document Store > Policy Development Process in RIPE

Changes to Policy Development Process in RIPE

Legend (+) Added (-) Deleted
Changed Tag Added Tag Deleted
ripe-500: This document describes the RIPE ripe-781: Policy Development Process (RIPE PDP), outlining how policies relating to the operation of the Internet are developed by and for the in RIPE community.

1. Introduction

This document describes the RIPE Policy Development Process (RIPE PDP), outlining PDP). It outlines how policies relating to the operation of the Internet are developed by and for by, and for, the RIPE community. delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> Since its creation in 1989, RIPE has been a forum for people to decide on common practices. These common practices may come in different forms and/or under different names: delete: </p> delete: <ul> delete: <li> best common practice (BCP) delete: </li> delete: <li> recommendations and guidelines to the community delete: </li> delete: <li> recommendations and guidelines to the RIPE NCC delete: </li> delete: <li> policy delete: </li> delete: </ul> delete: <p align="left"> This document refers deals solely to “Policy”. delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> with policy. Everything else, such as RIPE NCC business practices, procedures and operations is out of scope. insert: </p>

insert: <p>

The process that results in the creation of a policy has some important and fundamental principles:

delete: <ol type="a"> delete: <li> delete: <p align="left"> insert: <ol>
    insert: <li>
  1. It is open to all and follows an established, bottom-up process of collaboration. Everyone interested in the well-being of the Internet may propose a policy and take part in the discussions that follow on from the proposal. delete: </p> delete: </li> delete: <li> delete: <p align="left"> insert: </li>
  2. insert: <li>
  3. It is transparent. All discussions and resulting actions are documented and freely available to all. delete: </p> delete: </li> delete: <li> delete: <p align="left"> Conclusions insert: </li>
  4. insert: <li>
  5. Decisions are reached taken by consensus. delete: </p> delete: </li> delete: <li> delete: <p align="left"> insert: </li>
  6. insert: <li>
  7. All policies are documented within RIPE Documents and that are placed in the RIPE Document Store. delete: </p>
delete: <p> The policies referred to in this document are those developed through the bottom-up RIPE PDP. This document does not describe the specific administrative or technical procedures established in order for a policy to be applied. Depending on the specifics of a policy, procedures can be set by the Local Internet Registries (LIRs), End Users and the RIPE NCC as required. These procedures must conform to all policies that are in place. delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> RIPE Policies are also separate from RIPE NCC business practices and procedures. Business practices and procedures that the RIPE NCC follows are defined and governed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board and approved by the RIPE NCC membership. If a policy proposal would bring implementation and/or operational problems for the RIPE NCC if accepted, the RIPE NCC Executive Board is tasked to notify the RIPE community accordingly as well as to make necessary suggestions and recommendations about possible changes to the proposal. delete: </p>

2. The Process

delete: <strong> Past experience shows that before any text is drafted, it is very important to share the idea for a policy proposal with as many members of the RIPE community as possible. Presenting an idea to the relevant RIPE Working Group (WG) can lead to clarifications and improvements before the formal PDP is started. This is not mandatory, but it can save time and effort both for the community and for the proposers themselves.  insert: </p>

insert: <p>

Feedback received prior to starting the formal PDP can help to: insert: </p>

insert: <ul>
    insert: <li>
  • Clearly and concisely formulate the problem statement and the intended result insert: </li>
  • insert: <li>
  • Avoid creating a formal proposal with insufficient community interest or support insert: </li>
  • insert: </ul>
insert: <p>

It can also offer an opportunity to: insert: </p>

insert: <ul>
    insert: <li>
  • Research whether a similar idea has been discussed before insert: </li>
  • insert: <li>
  • Seek advice from authors of successful proposals (to help or become co-authors) insert: </li>
  • insert: <li>
  • Make RIPE Working Group Chairs aware of a possible upcoming proposal insert: </li>
  • insert: </ul>
insert: <p>

The chairs of the relevant working group are encouraged to guide the proposer in preparing a policy proposal. insert: </p>

insert: <p>

The process of developing a policy has four distinct phases: delete: </strong>

  1. Creating a Proposal Proposal 
  2. Discussion Phase
  3. Review Phase
  4. Concluding Phase
delete: <p align="left"> insert: <p>

These four phases are detailed below with timelines. They are proposed deadlines timelines for the various stages. Individual proposals These may choose to vary these, differ for individual proposals, but the actual timescales timelines must be documented.

delete: <p align="left"> insert: <p>

In all phases of the RIPE PDP, suggestions for changes to the proposal and objections regarding the proposal must be justified with supporting arguments. delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> In this arguments and then addressed adequately by the proposer or by any supporter of the proposal.  insert: </p>

insert: <p>

At the end of each phase of the process, the one of the chairs of the relevant WG will summarise the state of discussion on the WG mailing list. insert: </p>

insert: <p>

The RIPE NCC (the RIPE community's secretariat) gives provides administrative support throughout this process by:

  • publishing Publishing proposals and related discussions on relevant webpages
  • tracking Tracking deadlines
  • making Making announcements to the RIPE community
  • providing Providing assistance in drafting policy proposals if requested
  • providing Providing relevant facts and statistics
  • publishing Publishing an impact analysis that points to the possible effects of the proposed policy and the work that would be involved in its implementation.

The process flow is illustrated in a diagram, attached as delete: <a href="#appendixa"> Appendix A delete: </a> . delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> A. insert: </p>

insert: <p>

There are a number of points in the PDP at which where disputes could arise. The PDP is designed so that compromises can be made and genuine and  insert: <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282"> consensus achieved. insert: </a>  achieved. However, there are times when even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to agree on the decisions made at the end of any a PDP phase. To achieve the goals of openness, transparency and fairness, such conflicts must be resolved through a process of open review and discussion. This process is documented in delete: <a href="#appendixc"> Appendix C delete: </a> , RIPE Policy Development Dispute Resolution. discussion. 

2.1 Creating a Proposal

delete: <p align="left"> insert: <p>

Discussions may be started by anyone at any time. Participants Community members are welcome to discuss broad ideas as well as to make detailed policy proposals. Proposals are made using the Policy Proposal template, attached as delete: <a href="#appendixb"> Appendix B delete: </a> . delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> The B.  insert: </p>

insert: <p>

This template forms a structure for the proposal. It details sets out the reason for the proposal and any perceived consequences of the proposal. delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> A it might have. insert: </p>

insert: <p>

After preliminary discussion of the idea as suggested above, a proposal is discussed publicly in the relevant RIPE Working Group (WG)[ delete: <a href="#r1"> 1 delete: </a> ]. (WG)[1]. The proposal is usually submitted via the chair one of the chairs of that WG. If the proposer [ delete: <a href="#r2"> 2 delete: </a> ] [2] is not certain which WG is appropriate for discussion of the proposal, they can send the proposal to the RIPE Chair at at  [email protected] . In some cases, If a proposal may need input from more than one WG's input. In such cases, before the proposal is published, WG, the relevant WG chairs will discuss the situation and decide the WG most suited to discussion of the proposal. Necessary announcements will be made to the other WG(s) so they can follow the discussions. delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> discussions.  insert: </p>

insert: <p>

The RIPE NCC gives each proposal its own unique identifier and publishes it on a dedicated RIPE webpage. This webpage contains the version history and the status of all proposals. A proposal can have one of the following statuses then has a specific status at any given time: time, which can be:

  • Open for Discussion: Meaning  Meaning that the proposal is still being discussed within the RIPE PDP. PDP. 
  • Accepted: Meaning  Meaning that the RIPE community accepted the proposal after all stages of the RIPE PDP were completed.
  • Withdrawn: Meaning  Meaning that the proposal is withdrawn either by the proposer or by the WG chairs at one of the decision-making points. points. 

2.2 Discussion Phase

delete: <p align="left"> insert: <p>

Once a proposal is has been submitted, the RIPE NCC will announce it is announced on the Policy Announce Mailing List ( [email protected] ), which anyone can subscribe to. This announcement also indicates where discussion on the proposal will take place. This is place, usually sent to on the relevant WG mailing list. The WG chair sets chairs set the period for the Discussion Phase and this is at least four weeks.

delete: <p align="left"> insert: <p>

At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG chair, depending on the feedback received, the proposer decides whether the proposal will should be withdrawn from the RIPE PDP or, with the agreement of the WG chair, it can move to the next phase (Review Phase) or if it should be withdrawn from the RIPE PDP, depending on the feedback received. Phase). This should be done no more than four weeks after the end of the Discussion Phase. If the proposer does not communicate this their decision to the WG chair chairs within four weeks, the WG chair chairs can withdraw the proposal due to lack of response from the proposer. delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> proposer.   insert: </p>

insert: <p>

If significant comments or changes are suggested during the Discussion Phase, the proposer will edit the proposal and the new version of the proposal will be published. published by the RIPE NCC. A new Discussion Phase will then start for the new version of the proposal. delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> proposal.  insert: </p>

insert: <p>

If the suggested comments and changes are not so significant as to require a new Discussion Phase, the proposer and WG chair chairs can decide to move the proposal to the next phase (Review Phase) with a new version of the proposal incorporating the necessary edits.

delete: <p align="left"> insert: <p>

Each version of the proposal is publicly archived on the RIPE website to transparently show the history of changes to the proposal. delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> proposal.  insert: </p>

insert: <p>

If the proposer decides to take the proposal to the next phase, the they need to produce a draft RIPE Document which should be prepared published within four weeks. A policy weeks after the end of the Discussion Phase, before the proposal can result be moved to the Review Phase. If the proposal results in the modification or an update of an existing RIPE Document or can result in publication of a completely new RIPE Document. If the proposal is a modification of an existing policy or it is a new policy that needs to be documented in an existing RIPE Document, then a the draft RIPE Document needs to clearly pointing to mark the changes to the existing document will be published. If the proposal requires a completely new RIPE Document to be published, the draft should be produced before the proposal document. insert: </p>

insert: <p>

The RIPE NCC can be moved to the Review Phase. delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> help the proposer to prepare this document. insert: </p>

insert: <p>

The RIPE NCC will also conduct and need to publish an impact analysis about for the proposal before it can be moved to the Review Phase. The goal of this analysis is to provide relevant supporting information to facilitate the discussions about on the proposal and provide some projections about the possible impact if it were to be accepted. This analysis will contain the following points:

delete: <p align="left"> - insert: <ul>
    insert: <li>
  • The RIPE NCC's understanding of the proposed policy delete: <br /> - insert: </li>
  • insert: <li>
  • Impact on the registry and addressing systems (including Internet resource consumption, aggregation and fragmentation) delete: <br /> - insert: </li>
  • insert: <li>
  • Impact on RIPE NCC operations/services delete: <br /> - operations/services/capacity insert: </li>
  • insert: <li>
  • Legal impact delete: </p> insert: </li>
  • insert: </ul>

2.3 Review Phase

delete: <p align="left"> insert: <p>

The purpose of the Review phase Phase is to review the full draft RIPE Document and impact analysis compiled at the end of the Discussion Phase so that the final documentation the proposal will lead to and all Phase. Further modifications made to that document are transparent to the community. During the Review Phase, discussion of the proposal can continue, also in the light of the impact analysis that is published at the beginning of this phase, and within the context of the proposal, further modifications to the draft RIPE Document can still be suggested regarding the draft RIPE Document. during this phase. The Review Phase should last for a maximum of four weeks.

delete: <p align="left"> insert: <p>

At the end of the Review Phase, the WG chair determines chairs determine, after summarising the state of the discussion and inviting corrections, whether the WG has reached rough consensus. reached  insert: <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282"> consensus insert: </a> . If the WG chair decides chairs decide that consensus has not been reached, then the WG chair chairs can withdraw the proposal. Alternatively, the WG chair can send chairs can:  insert: </p>

insert: <ul>
    insert: <li>
  • Send the proposal back to the Discussion Phase if the proposer is willing to continue to author the proposal and make the necessary changes to the proposal according to the feedback received from the community. The WG chair can also decide insert: </li>
  • insert: <li>
  • Decide to have the draft RIPE Document edited and start a new Review Phase with a new version of the proposal. delete: </p> insert: </li>
  • insert: <li>
  • Extend the Review Phase for a maximum of four additional weeks if not enough community input was received. insert: </li>
  • insert: </ul>

2.4 Concluding Phase

delete: <p align="left"> If the WG chair determines that the WG has reached consensus at the end of the Review Phase, the WG chair moves the proposal to a “Last insert: <p>

Unless the proposal is withdrawn or sent back for further discussion or review, it enters the Concluding Phase. The WG chairs now issue a "Last Call for Comments” and the Concluding Phase starts. Comments" for the proposal on the WG mailing list and allow four weeks for comments. The Last Call period lasts four weeks. The RIPE NCC will send a copy of the Last Call announcement is also posted to the WG mailing list and to the Policy Announce Mailing List ( [email protected] ).

delete: <p align="left"> insert: <p>

The purpose of this Last Call period is to provide the community with a final opportunity to comment on the proposal. This is mainly intended for those who missed the previous two phases and want to oppose the proposal. It gives the community time to the community after the relevant WG chair declares chairs declare rough consensus at the end of the Review Phase Phase, so that suggestions for any final changes or objections to the proposal can be sent to the WG mailing list. At this stage, objections need to be justified and then addressed just as they must in the other phases phases. insert: </p>

insert: <p>

When the deadline for them to be taken into account. delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> At the end of the Last Call period, all RIPE comments has been reached, the WG chairs as a group will evaluate the feedback received during this period and decide whether consensus has been achieved. achieved.  If there is no feedback from the community at this stage, this is likely to be regarded as consensus and it will mean the previous call of rough consensus from the relevant WG chair WG chairs at the end of the Review Phase still holds. delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> holds.  insert: </p>

insert: <p>

If consensus has been achieved, the RIPE NCC will announce the decision of the RIPE WG chairs to the Policy Announce Mailing List and, if necessary, will implement the policy.

delete: <p align="left"> insert: <p>

If consensus has not been achieved, the RIPE achieved at the end of this phase, the WG chairs can decide to either to withdraw the proposal or to send it back to one of the previous phases. After a withdrawal, anyone is free to re-introduce the topic on the mailing list.  insert: </p>

insert: <h2>

3. Appealable Actions insert: </h2>

insert: <h3>

3.1 Discussion Phase insert: </h3>

insert: <p>

During the Discussion Phase, anyone who has a complaint or other concern about the policy proposal or how it is being handled in the WG should first raise the matter with the chairs of that WG. If the dispute cannot be resolved with the WG chairs, the Appeals Procedure can be invoked.  insert: </p>

insert: <h3>

3.2 Review and Concluding Phases insert: </h3>

insert: <p>

At these stages of the process – i.e. after the WG chairs have declared initial consensus or the proposal is in Last Call – complaints should not be about the policy proposal itself unless there are exceptional circumstances. insert: </p>

insert: <p>

Anyone who believes that the proposal has not been handled correctly or that the WG chairs have made an incorrect determination of consensus should first raise the matter with the WG chairs. If the dispute cannot be resolved with the WG chairs, the Appeals Procedure can be invoked.  insert: </p>

insert: <h2>

4. Appeals Procedure insert: </h2>

insert: <p>

If a grievance cannot be resolved with the chairs of the WG, an appeal can be submitted for consideration by the Working Group Chairs Collective (WGCC). Anyone may submit an appeal. This must be submitted to the relevant WG mailing list(s) and to the Policy Announce Mailing List ([email protected]). The proposer (or anyone else) is free to return the proposal to the WG appeal will also be published by the RIPE NCC at appropriate locations on the RIPE website. Any appeal should include a detailed and specific description of the issues and clearly explain why the appeal was submitted. An appeal must be submitted no later than four weeks after the appealable action has occurred.  insert: </p>

insert: <p>

The WGCC will decide by consensus whether to uphold or reject appeals which have been submitted. The decision of the WGCC should be reached no later than four weeks after submission of the appeal. The following list of people shall recuse themselves from any discussion or decision within the WGCC relating to the appeal:  insert: </p>

insert: <ul>
    insert: <li>
  • Co-chairs of the relevant WG(s) where the original proposal was discussed insert: </li>
  • insert: <li>
  • Proposer of the original policy proposal insert: </li>
  • insert: <li>
  • Appellant insert: </li>
  • insert: <li>
  • RIPE Chair and RIPE Vice Chair insert: </li>
  • insert: </ul>
insert: <p>

It is worth noting that the WGCC only reviews the process and not the content of the proposal or the discussion. No less than five WG chairs shall participate in the appeal process.  insert: </p>

insert: <p>

When considering an appeal, the participating WGCC members shall select one of their number as facilitator, who will chair the discussions relevant to the appeal. Exceptionally, and by agreement with the RIPE Chair, an external facilitator may be appointed instead. insert: </p>

insert: <p>

If the dispute cannot be resolved by the decision of the WGCC, they will refer it to the RIPE Chair no later than four weeks after the decision of the WGCC has been published. The RIPE Chair will make a final decision after due consideration and preferably within four weeks after the appeal has been referred to them. The decision of the RIPE Chair will be final. insert: </p>

insert: <p>

If an extension of the deadlines is needed at any stage of the appeal procedure, this will be announced on the Policy Announce Mailing List ( insert: <a href="mailto:[email protected]"> [email protected] insert: </a> ) and to the appellant(s) via email. insert: </p>

insert: <h2>

5. Changes to the PDP  insert: </h2>

insert: <p>

The PDP is a community governance document that describes how policy is made within RIPE, and not a policy. Any proposal to change the PDP is presented on the RIPE Discussion list and may be discussed during a RIPE Community Plenary. A consensus call is then issued on the RIPE Discussion list ( insert: <a href="mailto:[email protected]"> [email protected] insert: </a> ) by the RIPE Chair. It is crucial to carefully manage this process to ensure proper community consensus building. insert: </p>

insert: <div class="zd-indent">
insert: <h2 dir="auto">

6. Provenance insert: </h2>

insert: </div>
insert: <div class="zd-indent">
insert: <p dir="auto">

In April 2021, the PDP appeals process was reviewed, and the results were published as  insert: <a data-val="a4ce3153fe644e7e980d06c29fbe17b1" href="../../../resolveuid/a4ce3153fe644e7e980d06c29fbe17b1" data-linktype="internal"> ripe-760 insert: </a> . insert: </p>

insert: <p dir="auto">

Around the same time, Niall O’Reilly, the RIPE Vice Chair at the time, did a detailed analysis of the evolution of the PDP and published it as  insert: <a data-val="6826369189ef45539ea27e903e319d10" href="../../../resolveuid/6826369189ef45539ea27e903e319d10" data-linktype="internal"> ripe-761 insert: </a> . insert: </p>

insert: <p dir="auto">

This was a good opportunity to do an overall review of  insert: <a data-val="13bcf62453ec41cfbe1d8c1b3c159af9" href="../../../resolveuid/13bcf62453ec41cfbe1d8c1b3c159af9" data-linktype="internal"> ripe-710, insert: </a>  the PDP as published in 2018. insert: </p>

insert: <p dir="auto">

Draft v1 was published and announced in October 2021: insert: <br />
insert: <a href="https://www.ripe.net/../../../../../../../../../../ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2021-October/002350.html" rel="noopener noreferrer"> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2021-October/002350.html insert: </a> insert: </p>

insert: <p dir="auto">

This version was also presented and discussed during RIPE 83. The community requested a dedicated session to discuss the changes. An online feedback session was held in January 2022: insert: <br />
insert: <a href="https://www.ripe.net/../../../../../../../../../../participate/ripe/ripe-community-plenary/minutes/revised-pdp-workshop/" rel="noopener noreferrer"> https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/ripe-community-plenary/minutes/revised-pdp-workshop/ insert: </a> insert: </p>

insert: <p dir="auto">

Incorporating this feedback, draft v2 was published and announced in February 2022: insert: <br />
insert: <a href="https://www.ripe.net/../../../../../../../../../../ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2022-February/002450.html" rel="noopener noreferrer"> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2022-February/002450.html insert: </a> insert: </p>

insert: <p dir="auto">

Incorporating feedback made on the mailing list, draft v3 was published and announced in April 2022: insert: <br />
insert: <a href="https://www.ripe.net/../../../../../../../../../../ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2022-April/002518.html" rel="noopener noreferrer"> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2022-April/002518.html insert: </a> insert: </p>

insert: <p dir="auto">

There was general support for further discussion. delete: </p> this version. No additional requests for changes were received. insert: </p>

insert: </div>
insert: <div class="zd-indent">
insert: <h2 dir="auto">

7. Acknowledgments insert: </h2>

insert: </div>
insert: <div class="zd-indent">
insert: <p dir="auto">

Many thanks to Angela Dall’Ara and Alena Muravska, who provided a lot of insight in the Policy Development Process and suggested many constructive changes that significantly improved the final version of the text. Thanks also to Karla Liddle-White and Antony Gollan for helping with grammar and spelling and to Marita Phelan for dealing with the various draft versions and red-lined documents on the website. insert: </p>

insert: <p dir="auto">

Many thanks to everyone who provided feedback throughout the process, including the RIPE Working Group Chairs and the community members who actively participated in the online feedback session, including Peter Koch, Daniel Karrenberg, Rüdiger Volk, Cynthia Revström, Jordi Palet Martínez and Randy Bush. insert: </p>

insert: </div>
insert: <div class="zd-indent">
insert: <p dir="auto">

Any remaining errors or omissions are solely the fault of the authors. insert: </p>

insert: </div>

References

delete: <strong> [ delete: <a id="r1" name="r1"> delete: </a> 1] delete: </strong> [1] The RIPE community has formed a number of working groups to deal with issues and topics affecting the Internet community. Every RIPE Working Group has at least one chair (some working groups may have co-chairs). either two or three co-chairs. They are responsible for chairing discussions in the working group and, where necessary, making decisions in the Policy Development Process. delete: <br /> delete: <br /> delete: <strong> [ delete: <a id="r2" name="r2"> delete: </a> 2] delete: </strong> insert: </p>

insert: <p>

[2] A proposal can have more than one author. delete: </p> delete: <hr noshade="noshade" size="1" /> delete: <h2> delete: <br /> delete: <a id="appendixa" name="appendixa"> In this document the terms "proposer" and "author" are interchangeable and refer to one or multiple persons who author and submit a proposal. insert: </p>

insert: <h4>

insert: <a id="appendixa"> Appendix A: Appendix A: Policy Development Process Diagram delete: </h2> delete: <p> delete: <img class="image-inline" src="resolveuid/ce5bd2a58a1d897afc19b8658879dbce" alt="RIPE Policy Development Process" width="500" height="599" /> delete: </p> delete: <p> insert: </h4>

insert: <p>

insert: <img class="image-inline img-100" src="../../../resolveuid/ce5bd2a58a1d897afc19b8658879dbce" alt="RIPE Policy Development Process" /> RIPE Policy Development Process insert: </p>

insert: <p align="left">

NOTE: NOTE:  The actual timelines of individual proposals may vary. They are documented and announced per proposal.

delete: <hr noshade="noshade" size="1" /> delete: <h2> delete: <a id="appendixb" name="appendixb"> delete: </a> insert: <h4>

Appendix B: Policy Proposal Template delete: </h2> delete: <p> 1. delete: <strong> insert: </h4>

insert: <ol>
    insert: <li>
  1. Number (assigned by the RIPE NCC) delete: </strong> delete: <br /> 2. delete: <strong> insert: </li>
  2. insert: <li>
  3. Policy Proposal Name delete: </strong> delete: <br /> 3. delete: <strong> Name: insert: </li>
  4. insert: <li>
  5. Author Details delete: </strong> delete: </p> delete: <ol type="a"> delete: <ol type="a"> a. name insert: <ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
      insert: <li>
    1. name: insert: </li>
    2. insert: <li>
    3. email: insert: </li>
    4. insert: <li>
    5. organisation: insert: </li>
    delete: </ol> delete: <p>   delete: </p> delete: <ol type="a"> delete: <ol type="a"> b. email delete: </ol> delete: </ol> delete: <p>   delete: </p> delete: <ol type="a"> delete: <ol type="a"> c. organisation delete: </ol> delete: </ol> delete: <p>   delete: </p> delete: <p> 4. delete: <strong> insert: </li>
  6. insert: <li>
  7. Proposal Version (assigned by the RIPE NCC) delete: </strong> delete: <br /> 5. delete: <strong> NCC): insert: </li>
  8. insert: <li>
  9. Submission Date delete: </strong> delete: <br /> 6. delete: <strong> Date: insert: </li>
  10. insert: <li>
  11. Suggested RIPE WG for discussion and publication delete: </strong> delete: <br /> 7. delete: <strong> publication: insert: </li>
  12. insert: <li>
  13. Proposal Type delete: </strong> delete: </p> delete: <ol type="a"> delete: <ol type="a"> a. Type: insert: <ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
      insert: <li>
    1. new, modification or deletion insert: </li>
    delete: </ol> delete: <p>   delete: </p> delete: <p> 8. delete: <strong> insert: </li>
  14. insert: <li>
  15. Policy Term delete: </strong> delete: </p> delete: <ol type="a"> delete: <ol type="a"> a. Term: insert: <ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
      insert: <li>
    1. Temporary (time period) insert: </li>
    2. insert: <li>
    3. Indefinite insert: </li>
    delete: </ol> delete: <p>   delete: </p> delete: <ol type="a"> delete: <ol type="a"> b. Indefinite delete: </ol> delete: </ol> delete: <p>   delete: </p> delete: <p> 9. delete: <strong> insert: </li>
  16. insert: <li>
  17. Summary of Proposal delete: </strong> delete: <br /> 10. delete: <strong> insert: </li>
  18. insert: <li>
  19. Policy Text delete: </strong> delete: </p> delete: <ol type="a"> delete: <ol type="a"> a. insert: <ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
      insert: <li>
    1. Current policy text (if modification) delete: </ol> delete: </ol> delete: <p>   delete: </p> delete: <ol type="a"> delete: <ol type="a"> b. modification): insert: </li>
    2. insert: <li>
    3. New policy text text: insert: </li>
    delete: </ol> delete: <p>   delete: </p> delete: <p> 11. delete: <strong> Rationale delete: </strong> delete: </p> delete: <ol type="a"> delete: <ol type="a"> a. insert: </li>
  20. insert: <li>
  21. Rationale: insert: <ol style="list-style-type: lower-alpha;">
      insert: <li>
    1. Motivation for the proposal insert: </li>
    2. insert: <li>
    3. Arguments supporting the proposal delete: </ol> delete: </ol> delete: <p>   delete: </p> delete: <ol type="a"> b. insert: </li>
    4. insert: <li>
    5. Arguments opposing the proposal insert: </li>
    delete: <hr noshade="noshade" size="1" /> delete: <h2> delete: <a id="appendixc" name="appendixc" data-val="ce5bd2a58a1d897afc19b8658879dbce" data-linktype="internal"> delete: </a> Appendix C: RIPE Policy Development Dispute Resolution delete: </h2> delete: <h3 align="left"> delete: <strong> 1. Introduction delete: </strong> delete: </h3> delete: <p align="left"> This document specifies the procedures that shall be followed to deal with disputes regarding the PDP. delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> In each of the situations described in Section 3 of this appendix, the action being appealed is the decision to declare consensus or lack of consensus. One cannot appeal the merits of the policy proposal itself or its technical, political or legal grounds. These issues must be addressed in the PDP phases and should be taken into account by community members during discussion of the proposal. delete: </p> delete: <h3 align="left"> delete: <strong> 2. Terminology delete: </strong> delete: </h3> delete: <p align="left"> delete: <strong> 2.1 Working Group Chairs Collective delete: </strong> delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> For the purpose of this document, the term "working group chairs collective" refers to the chairs and co-chairs of all current RIPE Working Groups, not including the current RIPE Chair. delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> delete: <strong> 2.2 Working Group Chair(s) delete: </strong> delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> For the purpose of this document, the term "working group chair(s)" refers to the current chair and co-chairs of a working group. delete: </p> delete: <h3 align="left"> delete: <strong> 3. Appealable Actions delete: </strong> delete: </h3> delete: <p align="left"> delete: <strong> 3.1 Discussion Phase delete: </strong> delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> If, during the Discussion Phase, a community member believes that their views have not been adequately considered, their first action should be to raise the issue with the working group chair(s) for consideration. delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> If the dispute cannot be resolved with the working group chair(s), the matter shall be brought to the attention of the working group chairs collective, which will vote for or against upholding the decision made by the working group chair(s). The relevant working group chair(s) shall recuse themselves from any related discussion within the working group chairs collective. delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> The decision by the working group chairs collective shall be final in relation to the appeal. However, the matter can always be brought back to the working group for consideration. delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> delete: <strong> 3.2 Review Phase delete: </strong> delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> If a community member believes that the working group chair(s) have erred in their judgement when declaring consensus or lack of consensus at the end of the Review Phase, they should first raise the matter with the working group chair(s). delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> If the dispute cannot be resolved with the working group chair(s), the matter shall be brought to the attention of the working group chairs collective, which will vote for or against upholding the decision made by the working group chair(s). The relevant working group chair(s) shall recuse themselves from any related discussion within the working group chairs collective. delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> If the dispute cannot be resolved by the decision of the working group chairs collective, the issue should be brought to the RIPE Chair. The decision of the RIPE Chair will be final. delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> delete: <strong> 3.3 Concluding Phase delete: </strong> delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> If a community member believes that the working group chairs collective has erred in their judgement regarding consensus in the Concluding Phase Last Call, they should bring the issue to the attention of the RIPE Chair. The decision of the RIPE Chair will be final. delete: </p> delete: <h3 align="left"> delete: <strong> 4. Appeals Procedure delete: </strong> delete: </h3> delete: <p align="left"> All appeals should include a detailed and specific description of the issues and clearly outline the decision being appealed. An appeal must be submitted no later than four weeks after a decision has been made. delete: </p> delete: <h3 align="left"> delete: <strong> 5. Conflicts of Interest delete: </strong> delete: </h3> delete: <p align="left"> Working group chair(s) that are involved in an appeal should not be part of any discussion regarding that appeal in the working group chairs collective. delete: </p> delete: <hr noshade="noshade" size="1" /> delete: <h2> Acknowledgements delete: </h2> delete: <p align="left"> This document was edited by Fergal Cunningham. delete: </p> delete: <p align="left"> RIPE Working Group Chairs have reviewed and commented on the document before it was published. delete: </p> insert: </li>
  22. insert: </ol>
RIPE Documents Search