[ripe-list] PDP Appeals Process

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 to the community: The chairs are proposing costly tweaks to the 
existing procedure, such as writing and agreeing on a playbook and 
giving courses to WG chairs that may never use the PDP. I ask whether we 
should fundamentally review the procedure instead. That has a cost too. 
I expect this cost to be less or equal to the cost of the proposed 
tweaks. I also expect that we can come up with a good procedure that 
costs significantly less to *run* each time than a tweaked procedure. My 
message gives the general idea on how I propose to achieve that. This is 
the question we have to answer first.

The engineering comes after that. And, as always, the engineering will 
include trade-offs: the less costly the execution of the procedure is, 
the lower the threshold to invoke it can be and vice-versa.

Again: Should we go beyond tweaking and fundamentally review the PDP 
appeals procedure?

Daniel



On 10 Apr 2021, at 19:31, Randy Bush wrote:

>> Therefore I suggest to make more fundamental changes that do address
>> these shortcomings. Here are three generic suggestions:
>>
>> 1) There should be a higher threshold to make an appeal because
>>    appeals are costly to the community.
>>
>> 2) Appeals should be handled by a small number of people who commit 
>> to
>>    handling it properly within a defined time line because someone 
>> has
>>    to take responsibility.
>>
>> 3) Appeals should be fully and transparently documented from the 
>> first
>>    submission until the conclusion, because this is the RIPE 
>> standard.
>
> how may appeals has ripe had?  how many appeals were upheld?  how much
> sturm, drang, and omplaloskepsis are we willing suffer to tune it?
>
> imiho, your point one is the toughie.  you want to require N 
> signatures?
>
>> 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.
>
> i fear we have to go through this.  if so, i respect and value your
> start.
>
> randy
>
> ---
> randy at psg.com
> `gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd randy at psg.com`
> signatures are back, thanks to dmarc header butchery