On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 10:31:17AM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Again: Should we go beyond tweaking and fundamentally review the PDP appeals procedure?
the problem that lead us here seems to be much deeper than the appeals part at the far end of the PDP. One source of confusion is that there are natural limits to the jurisdiction of the PDP or RIPE policies in general: that's the numbers management of the RIR and, to some extent, the community services performed by the NCC for the RIPE community. That's also how far enforcement can reach. The 'controversial' proposals all tried one way or another to overstep this capacity to "enable" the NCC to take away resources for "violation" of rules that aren't in the natural remit of an RIR. One feature of the PDP that complicates things is that the author/proposer keeps the pen (other than, at least in theory, within the IETF). This may be going back to the times where policy would have originated from 'common sense' within the community and the author(s) were the poor stuckees doing the legwork. It doesn't fit well in cases mentioned above. This could be continued, but I'll stop here to focus on Daniel's question. -Peter