[ripe-list] PDP Appeals Process

On 4/10/21 11:13 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

> 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.

Wearing my arbiter hat, I agree that some of the challenges you describe
here are not dissimilar from those encountered during the RIPE NCC
Dispute Arbitration process. While there's by no means a 100% solution
to them all there either (e.g. the risk of bad-faith use of the process
to clog things up), it's indeed possible some elements of the
arbitration process might be helpful to address points you outline.

If that is, reform of the PDP appeals process is the path chosen, which
I don't have enough familiarity with to have a view on.

Keith



> - Appeals require a large amount of community resources. - The
> process involves too many people. - The process involves people who
> have not consciously signed up for it, e.g. all WG chairs. - The
> process involves significant number of people who feel they have to
> recuse themselves. - Documentation and Openness of the process leave
> to be desired.
> 
> Trying to apply incremental improvements to the existing procedure
> will not solve these significant shortcomings. 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.