Mirjam, Niall, WG Chairs, Thank you for sharing your minutes about the Appeals Review and PDP Evolution. As far as PDP appeals are concerned I have the impression that the discussion is at the wrong level. We seem to be trying to tweak the procedure without fully recognising some significant shortcomings: - 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. 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. Best Daniel Full disclosure: RIPE Participant since RIPE 0 and NCC staff from the beginning.