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
Rob, On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 02:04:42PM +0200, Rob Blokzijl wrote:
c. conclusions are reached by consensus.
Are we talking consensus or rough consensus ?
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
I think it would be a good idea to define a minimum 'Last Call' period.
[TEMPLATE Appendix B]
1. Number (assigned by the RIPE NCC) 2. Policy Proposal Name: 3. Author a. name: b. e-mail: c. telephone:
Nit: I don't think it is useful to require people to list phonenumbers. David Kessens ---
At 14:04 +0200 4/28/05, 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.
I have a few questions about the proposal. Perhaps the answer is that what I am concerned about it too detailed for the proposal, but I am curious nonetheless. My comments are probably only related to policies that are requests or recommendations to the RIPE NCC. 1) Is there a provision for the impact of the policy on resources? I.e., how much will it "cost" to implement? An impact statement, perhaps informal, would be good input to the discussion before the proposal goes to last call. A proposal might be altered to save implementation costs, for example. 2) Is there a provision for setting the deadline on implementing a service? Perhaps the template ought to have a proposed limit on how long, once the policy is approved for adoption, that the policy can be put into place. This will help measure the impacts of the policy, the "up front costs" as it were. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.
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
Hi,
Policy Development Process in RIPE Version 2
short note/warning: the website still points to the 1st version only at <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/>
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.
For the sake of easier reading the timelines should appear in the text as well.
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.
The introductory text suggested that also "recommendations to the community" would fall in the "policy" category. Thinking of various precedent in the DNS WG, should this process now be the only way to publish a RIPE document?
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.
Does this mean every single, all or the latest version of the document must be up for >= 4 weeks? Also the diagram suggests that a document only appears at the end of the Discussion Phase, making that a time where the WG decides to "adopt" the proposal as a work item.
2.3 Review Phase
Following the conclusion of the comment period the RIPE Working
The term "comment period" has not yet been defined. Is it the first 4 weeks of the Review Phase?
Group Chair determines whether the working group has reached
Here and in the diagram it says "Chair" where the plural might be more appropriate at least for some groups.
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.
How far back in the diagram would that point? I guess "documentation" means that before further "comment" there needs to be "discussion" to produce a new draft version. Should there be a limit for the number of iterations or at least a chair's (or chairs') judgement on this - to prevent resource exhaustion?
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
I suggest that there be a way to fold in last call comments without reiterating the whole process ...
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.]
... which will be helpful in this particular case. The default RIPE Last call period should be 4 weeks IMHO. -Peter
There is a language inconcistency in the document:
2.3 Review Phase
Following the conclusion of the comment period the RIPE Working
The term "comment period" should be changed to "Discussion Phase" to be concistent with paragraph 2 and 2.2
participants (5)
-
David Kessens -
Edward Lewis -
Hans Petter Holen -
Peter Koch -
Rob Blokzijl