I think the timeline pdf attachment needs to reflect the process. From the graphics I dont understand how the review phase works. The policy text reads 2.3 Review Phase Following the conclusion of the comment period the RIPE Working Group Chair determines whether the working group has reached consensus. If consensus has not been reached then the proposer may decide to withdraw the proposal. Alternatively, a new round of discussion and documentation may occur. But the graphics says "Comment and Review" with a suggested timeline of 4 weeks and an additional 1 week to make a desicion ? I propose that the graphics is updated to reflect the text in 2.3. -hph Rob Blokzijl wrote:
Dear colleagues,
please find attached the latest version of the Policy Development Process document. This is a last call - final remarks either to this mailing list, or at the RIPE meeting next week.
Closing date: May 10.
Regards,
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy Development Process in RIPE
R.Blokzijl 15 March 2005 Version 2
1. Introduction
Since its creation in 1989, RIPE has from time to time agreed on common practices. These common practices may come in different forms and/or under different names: - best common practice (or BCP), - recommendations to the community, - requests to the RIPE NCC, - recommendations to the RIPE NCC, - or just policy.
In this document they are all called 'Policy'.
The process that results in a policy has a few important and fundamental principles:
a. it is open to all. Everyone interested in the wellbeing of the Internet may propose a policy, and take part in the discussions.
b. it is transparent. All discussions and results are documented and freely available to all.
c. conclusions are reached by consensus.
This process has worked quite well over the years. This document does not seek to change that.
What this document does try to accomplish is a description of the process that will improve its management.
2. The Process.
In the process of developping a policy several distinct phases are identified:
1. Proposal Phase
2. Discussion Phase
3. Review Phase
4. Concluding Phase
Each of these phases are detailed below.
The whole process is summarised in a diagram, attached as Appendix A. This diagram contains timelines for the various stages of the process. These timelines are meant as defaults, or minimum timelines: individual proposals may define their own timelines.
In this process the RIPE NCC (the RIPE community's secreteriat) gives administrative support, such as:
- administering proposals - publication on relevant web pages - tracking deadlines
2.1 Proposal Phase
Discussions may be started by anyone at any time. Participants are welcome to discuss broad ideas as well as make detailed policy proposals. Proposals are made using a Policy Proposal template [TEMPLATE Appendix B]. The template forms a structure for the proposal. It details the reason for the proposal and any perceived consequences of the proposal.
A proposal is usually submitted via the chair of the relevant working group of RIPE. In case a working group can not easily be identified, the proposal may be submitted to the RIPE Chair.
The RIPE NCC identifies proposals with a number and publishes them in the appropriate section of the relevant working groups web pages. The page will indicate the version history and status of proposals: - Open for Discussion; - Agreed or - Withdrawn.
The RIPE NCC will also maintain a web page with an overview of all outstanding policy proposals.
Anyone that wants to draft a policy proposal may seek assistance from the RIPE NCC. The RIPE NCC will provide relevant facts, statistics and an assessment of the work involved in implementation of a proposal. The RIPE NCC will also assist with the drafting of text if its editorial services are required.
2.2 Discussion Phase.
Once a proposal has been submitted it will be announced on a dedicated mailing list to which anybody can subscribe: <policy-announce@ripe.net>. This announcement will also indicate where discussion on this proposal will take place. Usually this will be the relevant working group mailing list.
Where a policy change would result in an amendment to a published policy document, the textual changes are initially published as a draft document for community review and comment. There may be multiple iterations of a draft document if there is significant comment and change suggested.
The discussion phase will have a limited time period, but not less then four weeks.
2.3 Review Phase
Following the conclusion of the comment period the RIPE Working Group Chair determines whether the working group has reached consensus. If consensus has not been reached then the proposer may decide to withdraw the proposal. Alternatively, a new round of discussion and documentation may occur.
2.4 Concluding Phase
When the RIPE Working Group Chair determines that the working group has reached a consensus, s/he moves the proposal to a Last Call for comments. The Last Call announcement is posted to the working group mailing list, the Last Call announcements mailing list and Chairs of all working groups. At the end of the Last Call period the working group chairs will decide together whether a consensus has been achieved
If a consensus has been achieved, the RIPE NCC will announce the decision of the RIPE Working Group Chairs and implement the policy, if needed.
If consensus has not been achieved the proposer (or anyone else) is free to return the proposal to the working group for further discussion.
3. Appeal Process
[Having a documented process in place creates the need for an oversight function. In case there excists doubt wether the process has been followed, there is a need for an appeal procedure.
Input is sought on how to implement this.]
[TEMPLATE Appendix B]
1. Number (assigned by the RIPE NCC) 2. Policy Proposal Name: 3. Author a. name: b. e-mail: c. telephone: d. organisation: 4. Proposal Version: 5. Submission Date: 6. Suggested WG for discussion and publication 7. Proposal type: a. new, modify, or delete. 8. Policy term: a. temporary, permanent, or renewable. 9. Summary of proposal 10. Policy text a. Current (if modify): b. New: 11. Rationale: a. Arguments supporting the proposal b. Arguments opposing the proposal