repeated and continued PDP violation - WG chairs delaying or denying proposal publication - new policy proposal "Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure"
Hi all, Across the years, I've suffered this situation several times and I think this community must not allow it anymore and I wish the PDP has explicit actions against those situations, so they don't happen over and over. Briefly, in several situation I've written policy proposals, and the chairs of the WG, tried to convince me to not publish it, or actually decided not to publish it, or delayed it. Of course, this is a clear violation of the PDP (RIPE-710). The PDP states: "Discussions may be started by anyone at any time. Participants are welcome to discuss broad ideas as well as to make detailed policy proposals" Also: "A proposal is discussed publicly in the relevant RIPE Working Group (WG)[1]. The proposal is usually submitted via the chair of that WG." Actually, and since many years, "usually", you submit the proposal to the Policy Officer and if you already know the appropriate WG, you copy to the WG chairs. It is normal that the publication is delayed for a few days, as the WG chairs can provide some inputs, the staff as well (including editorial suggestions), questions to the staff, even the Board, etc., etc. HOWEVER, there is no way for the WG chairs to delay or deny a publication or reject a proposal (unless is clearly out of the scope of the WG). Actual specific example of the situation I'm facing (approximate dates, just to show the unacceptable delay in a policy proposal publication): 1) 9th September 2020: Anti-abuse-wg chairs decided to declare non-consensus in proposal 2019-04 and I announce that I've asked them for more details and if I'm not satisfied, I will start an appeal. A couple of community members, in private, tell me that it will not happen. I re-read the PDP and get convinced that they're right, but I must do it anyway. 2) I write a policy proposal ("Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure") to update the PDP to avoid this happening in the future (so clearly knowing that it will be relevant for my appeal). Submitted formally on 5th October. This proposal is sent to the Policy Officer and copied the chairs-team (as the PDP update is done via the "plenary" WG). 3) In the following few days/weeks, there are some updates of the policy proposal, thanks to the inputs of the Policy Officer and even there is a request to the Board for their confirmation in one detail (no longer relevant in the attached version). 4) At the end of October, as a result of several inputs from the Policy Officer and the Board I've a final version, which however, gets new inputs from the chairs-team so my very last version is really final by 12 of November and I ask for immediate publication. 5) Chairs-team try to convince me that they don't agree with a paragraph from the proposal on December 1st, also they indicate that Xmas is a bad timing (which never minds because the discussion phase could be extended if there are no inputs, etc.). 6) Even if there have been several requests from my side for publication (we have been discussing a parallel topic for a report on the appeal process, which doesn't change my perspective on my proposal), I've asked several times for the immediate publication, which has not yet been done. I agree that a month, for an initial discussion with the staff, editorial inputs, etc., is acceptable, even if most of those discussions could actually happen just in 1-2 weeks, because they could take place in parallel, instead of sequentially as it has been the case. However, we have got 3 extra months (November, December, January), and the proposal is NOT YET PUBLISHED. Even worst, the last times I asked for the publication, I got NO RESPONSE from the chairs. As a consequence, in addition to make sure that this NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN (I mean in general, no violation of the PDP), I attach the proposal, so the staff, *following the mandate of the PDP* (not the chairs, which have no voice on this according to the PDP) publish it IMMEDIATELY and we can start a discussion of it, immediately. Thanks. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi Jordi, Only responding to your proposal. I think this is a horrible idea. Things are rarely, if ever, solved by inventing more layers of bureaucracy. Creating an appeals committee is about the worst way to deal with your unhappiness that the chairs don't agree with you. The current policy already states that anybody who is involved in the dispute has to recuse themselves, so there is no conflict of interest to "fix". Cheers, Sander PS: PLEASE don't invent your own proposal numbers. The RIPE NCC PDO is the one who keeps track of proposal numbers. You can discuss things on this list, but please stop giving your proposals self-invented numbers to make them look more official.
Hi Sander, The last appeal demonstrated that: 1) Folks that should haven’t participated in the appeal, actually participated. It is clear that if you had a previous clear idea about a proposal, and even exposed it in the list during the discussion, shouldn't participate in the appeal. I think that something very obvious. 2) The one submitting the appeal, may recognize "issues" with someone resolving the appeal (was not my case, this time, but it happens), and then it should be able to deny that person participating in the resolution of the appeal. 3) If you want to be neutral, you need another layer, even if this adds some bureaucracy. What is clear is that the same layer of "judges" (the WGCC), even if we can trust they can be objective and neutral, it doesn't appear like that. It is about human nature. 4) The proposal number was the one available during the exchange of emails with the PDO. I've not changed it when sending the PDF to the list, just to keep the text "as it was". I fully understand that it will be provided at publication time by the staff, and this is the reason, in my email (subject and body), I've not used it at all, just the proposal title. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 7/2/21 22:46, "Sander Steffann" <sander@steffann.nl> escribió: Hi Jordi, Only responding to your proposal. I think this is a horrible idea. Things are rarely, if ever, solved by inventing more layers of bureaucracy. Creating an appeals committee is about the worst way to deal with your unhappiness that the chairs don't agree with you. The current policy already states that anybody who is involved in the dispute has to recuse themselves, so there is no conflict of interest to "fix". Cheers, Sander PS: PLEASE don't invent your own proposal numbers. The RIPE NCC PDO is the one who keeps track of proposal numbers. You can discuss things on this list, but please stop giving your proposals self-invented numbers to make them look more official. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Only responding to your proposal. I think this is a horrible idea. Things are rarely, if ever, solved by inventing more layers of bureaucracy.
+42 let's try to keep ripe a community, not a bureaucracy, political maze, or mindless conformity. diverse opinions are good and healthy. more rules, processes, power roles and structures, etc. not so much. randy
On 7 Feb 2021, at 21:46, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Only responding to your proposal. I think this is a horrible idea. Things are rarely, if ever, solved by inventing more layers of bureaucracy. Creating an appeals committee is about the worst way to deal with your unhappiness that the chairs don't agree with you.
+1000
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote on 07/02/2021 13:05:
Briefly, in several situation I've written policy proposals, and the chairs of the WG, tried to convince me to not publish it, or actually decided not to publish it, or delayed it.
Jordi, without prejudice to any of the proposals that you've submitted to various working groups over the years, one of the jobs of a working group chair is to make a call on whether or not a proposal is suitable for their working group. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the one of the generally accepted responsibilities of any chair is to ensure functional communication within a group and ensuring that the communication within the group is relevant and on-topic. So, a chair is within their rights to decline to take on a proposal if they feel it's unlikely to achieve consensus, or if it's been discussed extensively already without consensus, or if it contains - in their opinion - proposals which would be highly unlikely to gain consensus, or if they feel that the proposal was inappropriate or out of scope for their particular working group, and so on. In other words, regardless of whether or not it's stated explicitly in the PDP, the WG chair has leeway to accept or reject a proposal, as they see fit. If a RIPE WG chair rejects a proposal, the PDP allows the proposer to forward the proposal to the RIPE Chair. This would trigger an examination of the WG chair's decision. External review always causes us to examine our actions more seriously, so it seems unlikely that a WG chair would reject a proposal lightly, as they can be held to account for their decision. Incidentally, the duty to manage discussion isn't something specific to RIPE WG chairs - it's a general accepted principle about the rights and responsibilities of all chairs, regardless of what they're chairing. There's nothing unusual about the RIPE WG chair duties in this respect. Nick
Hi Nick, El 7/2/21 22:49, "Nick Hilliard" <nick@foobar.org> escribió: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote on 07/02/2021 13:05: > Briefly, in several situation I've written policy proposals, and the > chairs of the WG, tried to convince me to not publish it, or actually > decided not to publish it, or delayed it. Jordi, without prejudice to any of the proposals that you've submitted to various working groups over the years, one of the jobs of a working group chair is to make a call on whether or not a proposal is suitable for their working group. [Jordi] I mention that in my email. I agree that the chairs may decide that it may be "out of the scope of the WG", but nothing else. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the one of the generally accepted responsibilities of any chair is to ensure functional communication within a group and ensuring that the communication within the group is relevant and on-topic. So, a chair is within their rights to decline to take on a proposal if they feel it's unlikely to achieve consensus, or if it's been discussed extensively already without consensus, or if it contains - in their opinion - proposals which would be highly unlikely to gain consensus, or if they feel that the proposal was inappropriate or out of scope for their particular working group, and so on. [Jordi] I disagree here. By the fact that we are using consensus, it may happen that a single person in the community (example of an extreme case) supports a proposal, but *all the objections* to the proposal are invalid. For example, in case of very technical and *demonstrated* issues and *demonstrated* solutions. So, if the chairs disagree on accepting it, then it is impossible that consensus "really works". Besides that, if we really want to have that, then we can't use anymore "consensus" AND, we should have it clearly defined in the PDP. The PDP right now doesn't ALLOW rejecting a proposal. In fact, unless I'm missing it, as per today, the only RIR that has this chairs pre-decision of acceptance in the PDP is ARIN and it is really a bit different, because it works via the AC, etc. In other words, regardless of whether or not it's stated explicitly in the PDP, the WG chair has leeway to accept or reject a proposal, as they see fit. [Jordi] How come something not in the PDP is valid? Then tomorrow chairs can decide that something else "not in the PDP" is what they want to do! Irrational. If a RIPE WG chair rejects a proposal, the PDP allows the proposer to forward the proposal to the RIPE Chair. This would trigger an examination of the WG chair's decision. External review always causes us to examine our actions more seriously, so it seems unlikely that a WG chair would reject a proposal lightly, as they can be held to account for their decision. [Jordi] There is no such thing in the PDP. I would agree that this is a possible way forward, if the PDP has both aspects made explicit, but none of them are. Incidentally, the duty to manage discussion isn't something specific to RIPE WG chairs - it's a general accepted principle about the rights and responsibilities of all chairs, regardless of what they're chairing. There's nothing unusual about the RIPE WG chair duties in this respect. [Jordi] Again, where is that in the PDP? We can't accept a PDP that we can interpret in different ways when we (or the chairs) wish. Nick ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote on 07/02/2021 22:04:
El 7/2/21 22:49, "Nick Hilliard" <nick@foobar.org> escribió: Incidentally, the duty to manage discussion isn't something specific to RIPE WG chairs - it's a general accepted principle about the rights and responsibilities of all chairs, regardless of what they're chairing. There's nothing unusual about the RIPE WG chair duties in this respect.
[Jordi] Again, where is that in the PDP? We can't accept a PDP that we can interpret in different ways when we (or the chairs) wish.
Jordi, apologies, I tried to make it clear that this was not something specific to RIPE WG chairs, but maybe I wasn't clear enough: it's not in the PDP because it's a generally accepted duty and responsibility of all chairs, everywhere. If there were a need to document it explicitly - and I don't think there is a need - it would be in the WG Chair Job Description and Procedures document. Nick
I don't agree. Just look to other RIRs, or different "groups" with a chair. I think it must be explicit, if is in the PDP or in the "description of the chairs attributions", doesn't matter, but of course, the PDP should have an explicit reference to that document and that document should also reach consensus in the community. El 7/2/21 23:28, "ripe-list en nombre de Nick Hilliard" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de nick@foobar.org> escribió: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote on 07/02/2021 22:04: > El 7/2/21 22:49, "Nick Hilliard" <nick@foobar.org> escribió: > Incidentally, the duty to manage discussion isn't something specific to > RIPE WG chairs - it's a general accepted principle about the rights and > responsibilities of all chairs, regardless of what they're chairing. > There's nothing unusual about the RIPE WG chair duties in this respect. > > [Jordi] Again, where is that in the PDP? We can't accept a PDP that we can interpret in different ways when we (or the chairs) wish. Jordi, apologies, I tried to make it clear that this was not something specific to RIPE WG chairs, but maybe I wasn't clear enough: it's not in the PDP because it's a generally accepted duty and responsibility of all chairs, everywhere. If there were a need to document it explicitly - and I don't think there is a need - it would be in the WG Chair Job Description and Procedures document. Nick ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
On 7 Feb 2021, at 22:04, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote:
I agree that the chairs may decide that it may be "out of the scope of the WG", but nothing else.
Deciding something's “out of scope for the WG” can be a diplomatic way to avoid embarrassing the proposer(s). WG cochairs have the discretion to exercise that sort of common sense. Which doesn’t need to be written down the Big Book of RIPE Rules.
On 7 Feb 2021, at 13:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote:
("Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure”)
Hi, Jordi, all On your policy proposal: Is this something the Arbiters [0] could do well? Andy [0] http://ripe.net/about-us/legal/arbitration/list-of-arbiters
Hi Andy, I proposed several choices in my first versions (Arbiters, then Board), but the staff suggested against ... I understood some of the points of the disagreement by the staff, but I'm still open to have it again if the community believes is the right way. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 7/2/21 22:54, "ripe-list en nombre de Andy Davidson" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de andy@nosignal.org> escribió: On 7 Feb 2021, at 13:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote: > ("Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure”) Hi, Jordi, all On your policy proposal: Is this something the Arbiters [0] could do well? Andy [0] http://ripe.net/about-us/legal/arbitration/list-of-arbiters ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
On 7 Feb 2021, at 21:56, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote:
I proposed several choices in my first versions (Arbiters, then Board), but the staff suggested against ...
So, the NCC staff are making policy now? Interesting.
For many years ago, at lease since I did my first policy proposal (around 2003 or so I think), in most of the RIRs, the staff provides an initial feedback, editorial suggestions, sometimes they verify if something can really be done or not, possible issues, suggestions, etc., etc. I think this is good and perfectly acceptable *if* it is not "mandatory" for the authors to take it. Same for the chairs (very few actually), they provide inputs, suggestions, etc., etc., etc., but can't enforce the authors about those. I believe this is especially important because having more eyes and native English speakers (in 4 of the 5 RIRs) reading the proposal before the formal publication, can save a lot of discussion time and avoid miss-interpretations (because language or wording). I'm talking from my own experience: I've not really counted how many policy proposals I've submitted among all the RIRs, but probably close or slightly exceeding 100 and I think about 95% have succeeded to reach consensus (not counting those that are still in discussion or equivalent phases - may be around 15 at the time being). I think it is a good "sampling" of how the process works. If other authors have a different experience, it will be good to know. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 8/2/21 14:38, "Jim Reid" <jim@rfc1035.com> escribió: > On 7 Feb 2021, at 21:56, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote: > > I proposed several choices in my first versions (Arbiters, then Board), but the staff suggested against ... So, the NCC staff are making policy now? Interesting. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Andy, everybody, On 7 Feb 2021, at 21:53, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 7 Feb 2021, at 13:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote:
("Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure”)
Hi, Jordi, all
On your policy proposal: Is this something the Arbiters [0] could do well?
Andy
[0] http://ripe.net/about-us/legal/arbitration/list-of-arbiters
I am certain that the Arbiters __could__ do this well. Formally there currently seem to be certain obstacles. 1. The Arbiters are appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board. 2. The mandate which the current Arbiters have accepted does not include a role in the Appeals Procedure of the RIPE PDP. The RIPE Chair Team considers the first of these a sensitive point, in view of [discussion][] on the RIPE List last May, which I am sure that many of you will recall. Recent advice from the RIPE NCC cites [ripe-691][]:
"The arbitration procedure is available for the settlement of disputes and for the evaluation of requests for Internet number resources by the RIPE NCC."
and more specifically:
"The arbiters are responsible for the settlement of disputes:
Between Members and the RIPE NCC regarding decisions of the Executive Board or the Management Team with respect to the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement, including RIPE NCC procedures and implementation of the RIPE Policies"
In preparing a soon-to-appear RIPE document, I have learned that the idea of enlisting the Arbiters in the PDP Appeals Procedure was presented at RIPE44, but seems to have been abandoned by the time of RIPE55, when a full proposal for this procedure was presented, later to be published in ripe-428. Best regards, Niall — References: [discussion]: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2020-May/001818.html [ripe-428]: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-428 [ripe-691]: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-691 —
Hi Niall, When I sent the 1st version of the proposal, with the arbiters, the discussion with the PO brought that issue. I removed it from the policy proposal text, but I still believe that it could be possible that the RIPE community accepts the same group of people (arbiters) even if they are chosen by the RIPE NCC board. It is a matter of small modifications in the relevant documents and asking the existing arbiters (or chosen in the future) if they are also happy or not to be chosen in the appeal panel. I mean, no need to serve as an arbiter for the RIPE NCC and be obligated to serve as an appeal panel member, and no harm is done to the existing arbiters panel. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 9/2/21 14:58, "ripe-list en nombre de Niall O'Reilly" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de niall.oreilly@ucd.ie> escribió: Andy, everybody, On 7 Feb 2021, at 21:53, Andy Davidson wrote: On 7 Feb 2021, at 13:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list ripe-list@ripe.net wrote: ("Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure”) Hi, Jordi, all On your policy proposal: Is this something the Arbiters [0] could do well? Andy [0] http://ripe.net/about-us/legal/arbitration/list-of-arbiters I am certain that the Arbiters could do this well. Formally there currently seem to be certain obstacles. 1. The Arbiters are appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board. 2. The mandate which the current Arbiters have accepted does not include a role in the Appeals Procedure of the RIPE PDP. The RIPE Chair Team considers the first of these a sensitive point, in view of discussion on the RIPE List last May, which I am sure that many of you will recall. Recent advice from the RIPE NCC cites ripe-691: "The arbitration procedure is available for the settlement of disputes and for the evaluation of requests for Internet number resources by the RIPE NCC." and more specifically: "The arbiters are responsible for the settlement of disputes: Between Members and the RIPE NCC regarding decisions of the Executive Board or the Management Team with respect to the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement, including RIPE NCC procedures and implementation of the RIPE Policies" In preparing a soon-to-appear RIPE document, I have learned that the idea of enlisting the Arbiters in the PDP Appeals Procedure was presented at RIPE44, but seems to have been abandoned by the time of RIPE55, when a full proposal for this procedure was presented, later to be published in ripe-428. Best regards, Niall — References: — ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
On 9 Feb 2021, at 14:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
When I sent the 1st version of the proposal, with the arbiters, the discussion with the PO brought that issue. […]
Thanks for clarifying, Jordi. I expect that Andy couldn’t have been aware of that, and wanted to let him have an answer. Best regards, Niall
On 7 Feb 2021, at 13:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote:
I attach the proposal
I do not support this proposal. It is nonsense. It would add more procedural bloat, needless complexity and extra unwanted bureaucracy*. RIPE doesn’t deserve or need something like this. There’s no justification for it either. The proposal is fundamentally flawed because it shows a very poor understanding of how the PDP works. If/when a consensus judgement gets appealed to the WG Co-chairs Collective, anyone on the WGCC who was involved in that earlier judgement recuses themselves from the appeal. This is common sense and doesn’t need to be written down. * Just think of endless opportunities for shed-painting and rat-holing over how this supposedly independent and disinterested appeals panel gets selected, its terms of reference, standing orders, what happens mid-appeal if the entire panel disappear in a mysterious boating accident, decision-making when the panel can’t reach consensus, etc, etc. For bonus points, what structure has to be put in place to handle appeals about how this panel made its decisions or how its members were appointed. Where would all this craziness stop?
Anno domini 2021 Jim Reid scripsit:
On 7 Feb 2021, at 13:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote:
I attach the proposal
I do not support this proposal. It is nonsense. It would add more procedural bloat, needless complexity and extra unwanted bureaucracy*. RIPE doesn’t deserve or need something like this. There’s no justification for it either.
The proposal is fundamentally flawed because it shows a very poor understanding of how the PDP works. If/when a consensus judgement gets appealed to the WG Co-chairs Collective, anyone on the WGCC who was involved in that earlier judgement recuses themselves from the appeal. This is common sense and doesn’t need to be written down.
+1
* Just think of endless opportunities for shed-painting and rat-holing over how this supposedly independent and disinterested appeals panel gets selected, its terms of reference, standing orders, what happens mid-appeal if the entire panel disappear in a mysterious boating accident, decision-making when the panel can’t reach consensus, etc, etc. For bonus points, what structure has to be put in place to handle appeals about how this panel made its decisions or how its members were appointed. Where would all this craziness stop?
Funny, that were my thoughts exactly. Let's add the obvious problem on what to do if something thinks someone on the panel (however elected) is baised but the person her/himself doesn't think so, etc. Please let's not go there. Best Max -- Friends are relatives you make for yourself.
Funny, that were my thoughts exactly. Let's add the obvious problem on what to do if something thinks someone on the panel (however elected) is baised but the person her/himself doesn't think so, etc. [Jordi] The proposal has simple text for that. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
The proposal is fundamentally flawed because it shows a very poor understanding of how the PDP works. If/when a consensus judgement gets appealed to the WG Co-chairs Collective, anyone on the WGCC who was involved in that earlier judgement recuses themselves from the appeal. This is common sense and doesn’t need to be written down. [Jordi] It has not been the case in the first appeal we had. Chairs that participated in the discussion, so voiced their opinion against the proposal discussion (and of course I agree they should do it), haven't recused themselves. Also, there are chances that "personal conflicts" happen and they don't recuse themselves, so at least there must be the chance to ask for recusing some of the chairs. Just look at legal systems. You can always, if you expose a reason, to ask for a judge recusation, and also when you appeal, it is a totally different set of judges from a totally different level. It is for perfect reasonable reasons. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
On 8 Feb 2021, at 08:28, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote:
Just look at legal systems.
Exactly. This is RIPE. It’s not a court. Or a quasi-legal organisation. Think *VERY* carefully about making RIPE a lawyer-fest. There are other institutions which have those properties. Maybe you’d be more comfortable there? While I’m here Jordi, could you *please* fix your MUA so it does quoting properly? It would also be nice if you got rid of that silly and ridiculous email disclaimer which claims everyone on a mailing list is a criminal for the "disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents” of your emails.
Jim, ANY organization even if is not related to LAW, must do things according to LAW, otherwise, thinks against the law happen, and anyone can escalate them to the law. We can't decide in RIPE, that we will not allow blond hair people to participate. El 8/2/21 11:27, "ripe-list en nombre de Jim Reid" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de jim@rfc1035.com> escribió: > On 8 Feb 2021, at 08:28, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote: > > Just look at legal systems. Exactly. This is RIPE. It’s not a court. Or a quasi-legal organisation. Think *VERY* carefully about making RIPE a lawyer-fest. There are other institutions which have those properties. Maybe you’d be more comfortable there? While I’m here Jordi, could you *please* fix your MUA so it does quoting properly? It would also be nice if you got rid of that silly and ridiculous email disclaimer which claims everyone on a mailing list is a criminal for the "disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents” of your emails. ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
On 8 Feb 2021, at 10:40, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote:
ANY organization even if is not related to LAW, must do things according to LAW, otherwise, thinks against the law happen, and anyone can escalate them to the law.
That statement of the bleedin’ obvious is irrelevant to the matter in hand. FWIW I didn’t even suggest RIPE was above the law. Because it isn’t. I said you (and everybody) else should think very carefully about the consequences of turning RIPE into a lawyer-fest. In case you don’t understand that term, here’s a rough definition: having lawyers draft and negotiate all RIPE processes and procedures, mandatory judicial review for any document changes, all communication in WGs gets done through our respective lawyers, judges making consensus determinations, etc, etc.
We can't decide in RIPE, that we will not allow blond hair people to participate.
True. However in extreme cases we can ban people for various forms of misbehaviour or abuse - regardless of the colour of their hair. No matter. Can we please get back to a discussion of your deeply broken (and hopefully doomed) policy proposal?
Dear colleagues, Listening to the discussion and without going into detail about the proposal Jordi sent to the list, I would like to clarify a few things about the process. After Jordi sent his policy proposal to the RIPE NCC on 5 October 2020, the Policy Officer and the RIPE Chair Team worked extensively with the proposer on the content and language of the proposal. We specifically discussed the part of the proposal that referred to RIPE NCC bodies and suggested improvements to make the proposal more suitable for submission. During this process, the proposal went through a number of iterations, but we remained concerned about the lack of a clear problem statement. At the same time we felt it was not wise to propose a change to the very process we were reviewing. Therefore we suggested to defer the publication of the policy proposal until the review of the appeal has been finalised. After having looked more thoroughly at the Policy Development Process and the review of the appeal, the RIPE Chair communicated to the proposer on 1 December: “Therefore Niall and I believe that the RIPE Policy Development Process already adequately excludes participation in its appeal process by the people responsible for the decision under appeal. We may have missed something; if so, we would be glad to see a problem statement which makes this clear.” In the meantime we worked with all parties involved in the appeal on a review of the appeals process. That review has now been published as a draft document: https://www.ripe.net/publications/draft-and-discussion-files/review-of-the-r... together with a thorough analysis of the evolution of the PDP: https://www.ripe.net/publications/draft-and-discussion-files/evolution-of-th... We are currently working with the RIPE NCC to have both documents published as RIPE documents. As soon as that is done, we would like to have a community-wide discussion about the recommendations made in these documents. I would like to stress that the RIPE NCC Policy Officer followed the process very diligently. She provided excellent support to the proposer and the RIPE Chair Team and cannot be blamed in any way for delaying the publication of the proposal. Also, at no time was the RIPE NCC trying to influence the RIPE policy process. Kind Regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE Chair
Hi Mirjam, all, With all the respect "come on!". 1st clarification: I've not doubted about the work of the policy officer, I think I made clear that they did their job very well and I defended that it is important that they (and the relevant WG chairs) provide inputs since day one and it means that the published version of the proposal is cleaner, may already resolve some probably issues, etc., etc. I clearly stated that this is the way done in all the RIRs since many years ago. 2nd clarification: There is no lack of problem statement. In fact, the documents that you sent to the list DEMONSTRATE IT. You made observations about the lack of clarity in the self-recusation. My proposal not only resolves that, but also ensures that someone could be recused by the appellant, which is an obvious and very clear problem. And in addition to that, it is clear that having the same "group of people" (WGCC) being the Appeal Committee, instead of an independent set of people, IT IS A BIG PROBLEM. 3rd clarification: Even if it was true that there is not a clear problem statement, can you tell me what exact text of the PDP allows the chairs to delay or deny the publication of a proposal? Otherwise, I MUST sustain my point here, there is persistent violation of the PDP until my proposal is formally published. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 9/2/21 12:06, "ripe-list en nombre de Mirjam Kuehne" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de mir@zu-hause.nl> escribió: Dear colleagues, Listening to the discussion and without going into detail about the proposal Jordi sent to the list, I would like to clarify a few things about the process. After Jordi sent his policy proposal to the RIPE NCC on 5 October 2020, the Policy Officer and the RIPE Chair Team worked extensively with the proposer on the content and language of the proposal. We specifically discussed the part of the proposal that referred to RIPE NCC bodies and suggested improvements to make the proposal more suitable for submission. During this process, the proposal went through a number of iterations, but we remained concerned about the lack of a clear problem statement. At the same time we felt it was not wise to propose a change to the very process we were reviewing. Therefore we suggested to defer the publication of the policy proposal until the review of the appeal has been finalised. After having looked more thoroughly at the Policy Development Process and the review of the appeal, the RIPE Chair communicated to the proposer on 1 December: “Therefore Niall and I believe that the RIPE Policy Development Process already adequately excludes participation in its appeal process by the people responsible for the decision under appeal. We may have missed something; if so, we would be glad to see a problem statement which makes this clear.” In the meantime we worked with all parties involved in the appeal on a review of the appeals process. That review has now been published as a draft document: https://www.ripe.net/publications/draft-and-discussion-files/review-of-the-r... together with a thorough analysis of the evolution of the PDP: https://www.ripe.net/publications/draft-and-discussion-files/evolution-of-th... We are currently working with the RIPE NCC to have both documents published as RIPE documents. As soon as that is done, we would like to have a community-wide discussion about the recommendations made in these documents. I would like to stress that the RIPE NCC Policy Officer followed the process very diligently. She provided excellent support to the proposer and the RIPE Chair Team and cannot be blamed in any way for delaying the publication of the proposal. Also, at no time was the RIPE NCC trying to influence the RIPE policy process. Kind Regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE Chair ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Hi, On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 09:28:31AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
[Jordi] It has not been the case in the first appeal we had. Chairs that participated in the discussion, so voiced their opinion against the proposal discussion (and of course I agree they should do it), haven't recused themselves.
Now this is an interesting accusation. From what *I* recall, quite a number of WG chairs (me among them) recused themselves because of (real or perceived) neutrality issues. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Gert, Yes, but not *all those that participated in the discussion and opposed to the proposal* did the same. So, it is not an accusation, it is just *facts*. Again, not take this as "because this specific appeal": This proposal was written *before* the appeal, just looking in to the appeal section of the RIPE-710. That must be very clear. What I'm saying is that the actual PDP doesn't enforce all the chairs having participated (or even worst opposed) to the proposal, to recuse themselves. It also doesn't allow the authors of the policy proposal to recuse some of the chairs, which clearly it is a situation that can play against them. You don't know the "personal or business" motivations that a cochair can have against a proposal or authors. It is not rational to allow them to participate. *The same in the other way around*. It is not rational that if my best friend is going to participate in the appeal is allowed to participate. The actual wording "allows" them (both sides) to recuse themselves, but not enforce that (if they don't disclose their personal or business motivations may be nobody knows or only the proposal authors know). Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 8/2/21 11:33, "ripe-list en nombre de Gert Doering" <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net en nombre de gert@space.net> escribió: Hi, On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 09:28:31AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote: > [Jordi] It has not been the case in the first appeal we had. Chairs that > participated in the discussion, so voiced their opinion against the > proposal discussion (and of course I agree they should do it), haven't > recused themselves. Now this is an interesting accusation. From what *I* recall, quite a number of WG chairs (me among them) recused themselves because of (real or perceived) neutrality issues. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Just to make it explicit. I disagree with the proposal. -- Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org> (He/Him)
On 7. 2. 2021, at 14:06, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list < ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi all,
Across the years, I've suffered this situation several times and I think
this community must not allow it anymore and I wish the PDP has explicit actions against those situations, so they don't happen over and over.
Briefly, in several situation I've written policy proposals, and the
chairs of the WG, tried to convince me to not publish it, or actually decided not to publish it, or delayed it.
Of course, this is a clear violation of the PDP (RIPE-710). The PDP
"Discussions may be started by anyone at any time. Participants are welcome to discuss broad ideas as well as to make detailed policy proposals"
Also: "A proposal is discussed publicly in the relevant RIPE Working Group (WG)[1]. The proposal is usually submitted via the chair of that WG."
Actually, and since many years, "usually", you submit the proposal to the Policy Officer and if you already know the appropriate WG, you copy to the WG chairs. It is normal that the publication is delayed for a few days, as
states: the WG chairs can provide some inputs, the staff as well (including editorial suggestions), questions to the staff, even the Board, etc., etc.
HOWEVER, there is no way for the WG chairs to delay or deny a publication
or reject a proposal (unless is clearly out of the scope of the WG).
Actual specific example of the situation I'm facing (approximate dates,
just to show the unacceptable delay in a policy proposal publication):
1) 9th September 2020: Anti-abuse-wg chairs decided to declare
non-consensus in proposal 2019-04 and I announce that I've asked them for more details and if I'm not satisfied, I will start an appeal. A couple of community members, in private, tell me that it will not happen. I re-read the PDP and get convinced that they're right, but I must do it anyway.
2) I write a policy proposal ("Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals
Procedure") to update the PDP to avoid this happening in the future (so clearly knowing that it will be relevant for my appeal). Submitted formally on 5th October. This proposal is sent to the Policy Officer and copied the chairs-team (as the PDP update is done via the "plenary" WG).
3) In the following few days/weeks, there are some updates of the policy
proposal, thanks to the inputs of the Policy Officer and even there is a request to the Board for their confirmation in one detail (no longer relevant in the attached version).
4) At the end of October, as a result of several inputs from the Policy
Officer and the Board I've a final version, which however, gets new inputs from the chairs-team so my very last version is really final by 12 of November and I ask for immediate publication.
5) Chairs-team try to convince me that they don't agree with a paragraph
from the proposal on December 1st, also they indicate that Xmas is a bad timing (which never minds because the discussion phase could be extended if there are no inputs, etc.).
6) Even if there have been several requests from my side for publication
(we have been discussing a parallel topic for a report on the appeal process, which doesn't change my perspective on my proposal), I've asked several times for the immediate publication, which has not yet been done.
I agree that a month, for an initial discussion with the staff, editorial
inputs, etc., is acceptable, even if most of those discussions could actually happen just in 1-2 weeks, because they could take place in parallel, instead of sequentially as it has been the case. However, we have got 3 extra months (November, December, January), and the proposal is NOT YET PUBLISHED. Even worst, the last times I asked for the publication, I got NO RESPONSE from the chairs.
As a consequence, in addition to make sure that this NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN
(I mean in general, no violation of the PDP), I attach the proposal, so the staff, *following the mandate of the PDP* (not the chairs, which have no voice on this according to the PDP) publish it IMMEDIATELY and we can start a discussion of it, immediately.
Thanks.
Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
<2020-01-PDP-appeals_v1.7_reviewed-jordi .pdf>
-- -- Ondřej Surý
Hi, Now i'm confused! Which proposal exactly? https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/current-proposals/current-policy-p... ...seems to be empty! Regards, Carlos On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, Ond?ej Surý wrote:
Just to make it explicit. I disagree with the proposal.
-- Ond?ej Surý <ondrej@sury.org> (He/Him)
On 7. 2. 2021, at 14:06, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi all,
Across the years, I've suffered this situation several times and I think this community must not allow it anymore and I wish the PDP has explicit actions against those situations, so they don't happen over and over.
Briefly, in several situation I've written policy proposals, and the chairs of the WG, tried to convince me to not publish it, or actually decided not to publish it, or delayed it.
Of course, this is a clear violation of the PDP (RIPE-710). The PDP states: "Discussions may be started by anyone at any time. Participants are welcome to discuss broad ideas as well as to make detailed policy proposals"
Also: "A proposal is discussed publicly in the relevant RIPE Working Group (WG)[1]. The proposal is usually submitted via the chair of that WG."
Actually, and since many years, "usually", you submit the proposal to the Policy Officer and if you already know the appropriate WG, you copy to the WG chairs. It is normal that the publication is delayed for a few days, as the WG
chairs can provide some inputs, the staff as well (including editorial suggestions), questions to the staff, even the Board, etc., etc.
HOWEVER, there is no way for the WG chairs to delay or deny a publication or reject a proposal (unless is clearly out of the scope of the WG).
Actual specific example of the situation I'm facing (approximate dates, just to show the unacceptable delay in a policy proposal publication):
1) 9th September 2020: Anti-abuse-wg chairs decided to declare non-consensus in proposal 2019-04 and I announce that I've asked them for more details and if I'm not satisfied, I will start an appeal. A couple of community members,
in private, tell me that it will not happen. I re-read the PDP and get convinced that they're right, but I must do it anyway.
2) I write a policy proposal ("Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure") to update the PDP to avoid this happening in the future (so clearly knowing that it will be relevant for my appeal). Submitted formally on 5th October.
This proposal is sent to the Policy Officer and copied the chairs-team (as the PDP update is done via the "plenary" WG).
3) In the following few days/weeks, there are some updates of the policy proposal, thanks to the inputs of the Policy Officer and even there is a request to the Board for their confirmation in one detail (no longer relevant in the
attached version).
4) At the end of October, as a result of several inputs from the Policy Officer and the Board I've a final version, which however, gets new inputs from the chairs-team so my very last version is really final by 12 of November and I
ask for immediate publication.
5) Chairs-team try to convince me that they don't agree with a paragraph from the proposal on December 1st, also they indicate that Xmas is a bad timing (which never minds because the discussion phase could be extended if there are
no inputs, etc.).
6) Even if there have been several requests from my side for publication (we have been discussing a parallel topic for a report on the appeal process, which doesn't change my perspective on my proposal), I've asked several times
for the immediate publication, which has not yet been done.
I agree that a month, for an initial discussion with the staff, editorial inputs, etc., is acceptable, even if most of those discussions could actually happen just in 1-2 weeks, because they could take place in parallel, instead of
sequentially as it has been the case. However, we have got 3 extra months (November, December, January), and the proposal is NOT YET PUBLISHED. Even worst, the last times I asked for the publication, I got NO RESPONSE from the chairs.
As a consequence, in addition to make sure that this NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN (I mean in general, no violation of the PDP), I attach the proposal, so the staff, *following the mandate of the PDP* (not the chairs, which have no voice on
this according to the PDP) publish it IMMEDIATELY and we can start a discussion of it, immediately.
Thanks.
Regards, Jordi @jordipalet
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
<2020-01-PDP-appeals_v1.7_reviewed-jordi .pdf>
-- -- Ond?ej Surý
participants (12)
-
Andy Davidson -
Carlos Friaças -
Gert Doering -
Jim Reid -
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ -
Maximilian Wilhelm -
Mirjam Kuehne -
Niall O'Reilly -
Nick Hilliard -
Ondřej Surý -
Randy Bush -
Sander Steffann