Skip to main content
  • Legend
  • Added
  • Deleted

1. Introduction

This document describes the RIPE Policy Development Process (RIPE PDP). It outlines PDP), outlining how policies relating to the operation of the Internet are developed by, and for, by and for the RIPE community. This document deals solely with policy. Everything else, such as RIPE NCC business practices, procedures and operations is out of scope. The RIPE Chair is the author and owner of this document.

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:

  • Best common practice (BCP)
  • Recommendations and guidelines to the community
  • Recommendations and guidelines to the RIPE NCC
  • Policy

This document refers solely to “Policy”.

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

  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.
  2. It is transparent. All discussions and resulting actions are documented and freely available to all.
  3. Decisions are taken Conclusions are reached by consensus.
  4. All policies are documented within RIPE Documents that are and placed in the RIPE Document Store.

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.

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.

2. The Process

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. 

Feedback received prior to starting the formal PDP can help to:

  • Clearly and concisely formulate the problem statement and the intended result
  • Avoid creating a formal proposal with insufficient community interest or support

It can also offer an opportunity to:

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

The chairs of the relevant working group are encouraged to guide the proposer in preparing a policy proposal.

The process of developing a policy has four distinct phases:

  1. Creating a Proposal 
  2. Discussion Phase
  3. Review Phase
  4. 2. Discussion Phase

    3. Review Phase

  5. Concluding Phase

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

In all phases of the RIPE PDP, suggestions for changes to the proposal and objections regarding the proposal must be justified with supporting

arguments and then addressed adequately by the proposer or by any supporter of the proposal. 

At the end of each phase of the process, one of the chairs of the relevant WG will summarise the state of discussion on the WG mailing list.

The arguments.In this process, the

RIPE NCC (the RIPE community's secretariat) provides administrative support throughout this process gives administrative support by:
  • Publishing proposals and related discussions on relevant webpages
  • Tracking deadlines
  • Making announcements to the RIPE community
  • Providing assistance in drafting policy proposals if requested
  • Providing relevant facts and statistics
  • 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 Appendix A. A Link: #appendixa .

There are a number of points in the PDP where at which disputes could arise. The PDP is designed so that compromises can be made and  consensus Link: genuine consensus 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 a any PDP phase. To achieve the goals of openness, transparency and fairness, such conflicts must be resolved through a process of open review and discussion. 

2.1 Creating a Proposal

Discussions may be started by anyone at any time. Community members Participants are welcome to discuss broad ideas as well as to make detailed policy proposals. Proposals are made using the Policy Proposal template, attached as Appendix

B. This B Link: #appendixb .The

template forms a structure for the proposal. It sets out details the reason for the proposal and any perceived consequences

it might have.After preliminary discussion of the idea as suggested above, a of the proposal.A

proposal is discussed publicly in the relevant RIPE Working Group (WG)[1]. (WG)[1 Link: #r1 ]. The proposal is usually submitted via one of the chairs the chair of that WG. If the proposer [2] [2 Link: #r2 ] is not certain which WG is appropriate for discussion of the proposal, they can send the proposal to the RIPE Chair at [email protected]. If In some cases, a proposal may need input from more than one WG, WG's input. In such cases, before the proposal is published, 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. 

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 then has a specific status can have one of the following statuses at any given time, which can be: time:

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

2.2 Discussion Phase

Once a proposal has been submitted, the RIPE NCC will announce it is submitted, 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, usually on place. This is usually sent to the relevant WG mailing list. The WG chairs set chair sets the period for the Discussion Phase and this is at least four weeks.

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

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 by the RIPE NCC. published. A new Discussion Phase will then start for the new version of the proposal. 

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

Each version of the proposal is publicly archived on the RIPE website to transparently show the history of changes to the proposal. 

If the proposer decides to take the proposal to the next phase, they need to produce a the draft RIPE Document which should be published within four weeks after the end of the Discussion Phase, before the proposal can be moved to the Review Phase. If the proposal results should be prepared within four weeks. A policy proposal can result in the modification or an update of an existing RIPE Document, then the 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 draft RIPE Document needs to clearly mark clearly pointing to the changes to the existing document.

The RIPE NCC can help the proposer to prepare this document.

document will be published. If the proposal requires a completely new RIPE Document to be published, the draft should be produced before the proposal can be moved to the Review Phase.

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

  • The RIPE NCC's understanding of the proposed policy
  • Impact on the registry and addressing systems (including Internet resource consumption, aggregation and fragmentation)
  • Impact on RIPE NCC operations/services/capacity operations/services
  • Legal impact

2.3 Review Phase

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. Further modifications to the draft RIPE Document Phase so that the final documentation the proposal will lead to and all 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 can still be suggested during this phase. regarding the draft RIPE Document. The Review Phase should last for a maximum of four weeks.

At the end of the Review Phase, the WG chairs determine, after summarising the state of the discussion and inviting corrections, chair determines whether the WG has reached  consensus Link: . rough consensus. If the WG chairs decide chair decides that consensus has not been reached, then the WG chairs chair can withdraw the proposal. Alternatively, the WG chairs chair can: 

  • Send the proposal back to the Discussion Phase if the proposer is willing to continue to author the proposal and make the necessary changes according to to the proposal according to the feedback received from the community.
  • Decide to have the draft RIPE Document edited and start a new Review Phase with a new version of the proposal.
  • Extend the Review Phase for a maximum of four additional weeks if If not enough community input was received.
received, extend the Review Phase for a maximum of four additional weeks.

2.4 Concluding Phase

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

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 time to the community after the relevant WG chairs declare chair declares 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 just as in the other

phases.When the deadline for comments has been reached, the WG chairs phases for them to be taken into account.At the end of the Last Call period, the WG chair

will evaluate the feedback received during this period and decide whether consensus has been 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 WG chairs chair at the end of the Review Phase still holds. 

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

If consensus has not been achieved at the end of this phase, the WG chairs can decide either to achieved, the WG chair can decide to either withdraw the proposal or to send it back to one of the previous phases. After a withdrawal, anyone The proposer (or anyone else) is free to re-introduce the topic on the mailing list.  return the proposal to the WG for further discussion after a withdrawal.

3. Appealable Actions

3.1 Discussion Phase

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 chair of that WG. If the dispute cannot be resolved with the WG chairs, chair, the Appeals Procedure can be invoked. 

3.2 Review and & Concluding Phases

At these stages of the process – i.e. after the WG chairs have chair has declared initial consensus or the proposal is in Last Call – complaints should not be about the policy proposal itself unless there are exceptional extenuating circumstances.

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

4. Appeals Procedure

If a grievance cannot be resolved with the chairs of the WG, an appeal can be submitted for consideration by chair of the WG the matter can be brought to the attention of 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]). ([email protected] Link: mailto:[email protected] ). The appeal will also be published by the RIPE NCC at appropriate locations on the RIPE website. web site. 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. 

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 of an appeal being made. Interested parties shall recuse themselves from any discussion or decision within the WGCC relating to the appeal: 

  • Co-chairs of the relevant WG(s) where the original proposal was discussed
  • Proposer of the original policy proposal
  • Appellant
  • RIPE Chair and RIPE Vice Chair

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. 

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.


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 issue should be brought to the RIPE Chair. The decision of the RIPE Chair will be final.

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 ([email protected] Link: mailto:[email protected] ) and to the appellant(s) via email.

5. Changes to the PDP 

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 ([email protected] Link: mailto:[email protected] ) by the RIPE Chair. It is crucial to carefully manage this process to ensure proper community consensus building.

6. Provenance

In April 2021, the PDP appeals process was reviewed, and the results were published as ripe-760 Link: /publications/docs/ripe-760/ .

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 ripe-761 Link: /publications/docs/ripe-761/ .

This was a good opportunity to do an overall review of ripe-710, Link: /publications/docs/ripe-710/ the PDP as published in 2018.

Draft v1 was published and announced in October 2021: Link: /ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2021-October/002350.html

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: Link: /participate/ripe/ripe-community-plenary/minutes/revised-pdp-workshop/

Incorporating this feedback, draft v2 was published and announced in February 2022: Link: /ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2022-February/002450.html

Incorporating feedback made on the mailing list, draft v3 was published and announced in April 2022: Link: /ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2022-April/002518.html

There was general support for this version. No additional requests for changes were received.

7. Acknowledgments

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.

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.

Any remaining errors or omissions are solely the fault of the authors.


[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 either two or three co-chairs. at least one chair (some working groups may have co-chairs). They are responsible for chairing discussions in the working group and, where necessary, making decisions in the Policy Development Process.

[2] A proposal can have more than one author. In this document the terms "proposer" and "author" are interchangeable and refer to one or multiple persons who author and submit a proposal.

Appendix A: Policy Development Process Diagram

RIPE Policy Development Process

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

Appendix B: Policy Proposal Template

  1. Number (assigned by the RIPE NCC)
  2. Policy Proposal Name:
  3. Author Details
    1. name:
    2. email:
    3. organisation:

  4. 2.
    Policy Proposal Name
    Author Details

    a. name

    b. email

    c. organisation

  5. Proposal Version (assigned by the RIPE NCC):
  6. Submission Date:
  7. NCC)
    5. Submission Date
  8. Suggested RIPE WG for discussion and
  9. publication:Proposal Type:
  10. publication
    7. Proposal Typea.
    1. new, modification or deletion
  11. Policy Term:

    8. Policy Term

    1. Temporary (time period)
    2. Indefinite
  12. b. Indefinite

  13. Summary of Proposal
  14. Policy Text
    10. Policy Texta.
    1. Current policy text (if
      1. modification):
      2. New policy text:
      3. Rationale:
      4. Motivation for the proposal
  15. modification)

    b. New policy text


  16. Arguments supporting the proposal
  17. b.
  18. Arguments opposing the proposal


This document was edited by Fergal Cunningham.

RIPE Working Group Chairs have reviewed and commented on the document before it was published.