1. Introduction

This document describes the RIPE Policy Development Process (RIPE PDP). It outlines how policies relating to the operation of the Internet are developed by, and for, the RIPE community. This document deals solely with policy. Everything else, such as RIPE NCC business practices, procedures and operations is out of scope.

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 the creation of a policy has some a few important and fundamental principles:

1. It it is open to all and follows an established, bottom-up process of collaboration. all. Everyone interested in the well-being of the Internet may propose a policy policy, and take part in the
2. discussions that follow on from the proposal.It discussions.it
is transparent. All discussions and resulting actions results are documented and freely available to all.
3. Decisions are taken by consensus.
4. All policies are documented within RIPE Documents that are placed in the RIPE Document Store.
all
5. 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

Past experience shows that before any text is drafted, it is very important to share the idea for a policy proposal with as many members of the RIPE community as possible. Presenting an idea to the relevant RIPE Working Group (WG) can lead to clarifications and improvements before the formal PDP is started. This is not mandatory, but it can save time and effort both for the community and for the proposers themselves. 

Feedback received prior to starting the formal PDP can help to:

• Clearly and concisely formulate the problem statement and the intended result
• Avoid creating a formal proposal with insufficient community interest or support

It can also offer an opportunity to:

• Research whether a similar idea has been discussed before
• Seek advice from authors of successful proposals (to help or become co-authors)
• Make RIPE Working Group Chairs aware of a possible upcoming proposal

The chairs of the relevant working group are encouraged to guide the proposer in preparing a policy proposal.

The In the process of developing a policy has four distinct phases: several distinct phases are identified:

1. Creating a Proposal 
2. Discussion Phase
3. Review Phase
4. Concluding Phase

These Each of these phases are detailed below with proposed timelines below.In the descriptions below, timelines are mentioned. They are proposed deadlines for the various stages. These may differ for individual proposals, but the actual timelines proposal phases. Individual proposals may choose to vary these, however the actual timescales must be documented.

In

all phases of the RIPE PDP, suggestions for changes to the proposal and objections regarding the proposal must be justified with supporting arguments and then addressed adequately by the proposer or by any supporter of the proposal. 

At the end of each phase of the process, one of the chairs of the relevant WG will summarise the state of discussion on the WG mailing list.

The

this process, the RIPE NCC (the RIPE community's secretariat) provides administrative support throughout this process by:

• Publishing proposals and related discussions on relevant webpages
• Tracking deadlines
• Making announcements to the RIPE community
• Providing assistance in drafting policy proposals if requested
• Providing relevant facts and statistics
• Publishing an impact analysis that points to the possible effects of the proposed policy and the work that would be involved in its implementation.

gives administrative support, such as:

• administering proposals
• publication on relevant web pages
• tracking deadlines

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.

The process flow is illustrated in a diagram, attached as Appendix A.

There are a number of points in the PDP where disputes could arise. The PDP is designed so that compromises can be made and consensus Link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282 achieved. However, there are times when even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to agree on the decisions made at the end of a PDP phase. To achieve the goals of openness, transparency and fairness, such conflicts must be resolved through a process of open review and discussion. 

diagram in Appendix A.

2.1 Creating a Proposal

Discussions may be started by anyone Anyone can start a discussion at any time. Community members Participants are welcome to discuss broad ideas as well as to make detailed policy proposals. Proposals are made using

the Policy Proposal template, attached as Appendix B. This a Policy Proposal Template [TEMPLATE Appendix B].The

template forms a structure for the proposal. It sets out details the reason for the proposal and any perceived consequences

it might have.After preliminary discussion of the idea as suggested above, a proposal is discussed publicly in the relevant RIPE Working Group (WG)[1]. The of the proposal.A

proposal is usually submitted via one of the chairs of that WG. If the proposer [2] is not certain which WG is appropriate for discussion of the proposal, they can send the proposal to the RIPE Chair at policy-proposal@ripe.net Link: mailto:policy-proposal@ripe.net . If a proposal may need input from more than one WG, the relevant WG chairs will discuss the situation and decide the WG most suited to discussion of the proposal. Necessary announcements will be made to the other WG(s) so they can follow the discussions.  the Chair of the relevant RIPE Working Group or via the RIPE Chair.

The RIPE NCC gives each proposal its own unique identifier and publishes it on a dedicated RIPE webpage. This webpage contains 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 the status of all proposals. A proposal then has a specific status at any given time, which can be:

• Open for Discussion:Meaning that the proposal is still being discussed within the RIPE PDP. 
• Accepted:Meaning that the RIPE community accepted the proposal after all stages of the RIPE PDP were completed.
• Withdrawn:Meaning that the proposal is withdrawn either by the proposer or by the WG chairs at one of the decision-making points. 

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.

2.2 Discussion Phase

Once a proposal has been submitted, the RIPE NCC will announce it on the Policy Announce Mailing List (policy-announce@ripe.net Link: mailto:policy-announce@ripe.net ), which anyone can subscribe to. This announcement also indicates it will be announced on a dedicated mailing list to which anybody can subscribe: policy-announce@ripe.net Link: mailto:policy-announce@ripe.net . This announcement will also indicate where discussion on the this proposal will take place, usually on the relevant WG mailing list. The WG chairs set the period for the Discussion Phase and this is at least four weeks.

At the end of the Discussion Phase, depending on the feedback received, the proposer decides whether the proposal should be withdrawn from the RIPE PDP or, with the agreement of the WG chair, it can move to the next phase (Review Phase). This should be done no more than four weeks after the end of the Discussion Phase. If the proposer does not communicate their decision to the WG chairs within four weeks, the WG chairs can withdraw the proposal due to lack of response from the proposer.  

If significant comments or changes are suggested during the Discussion Phase, the proposer will edit the proposal and the new version of the proposal will be published by the RIPE NCC. A new Discussion Phase will then start for the new version of the proposal. 

If the suggested comments and changes are not so significant as to require a new Discussion Phase, the proposer and WG chairs can decide to move the proposal to the next phase (Review Phase) with a new version of the proposal incorporating the necessary edits.

Each version of the proposal is publicly archived on the RIPE website to transparently show the history of changes to the proposal. 

If the proposer decides to take the proposal to the next phase, they need to produce a draft RIPE Document which should be published within four weeks after the end of the Discussion Phase, before the proposal can be moved to the Review Phase. If the proposal results in the modification or an update of an existing RIPE Document, then the draft RIPE Document needs to clearly mark the changes to the existing document.

The RIPE NCC can help the proposer to prepare this document.

The RIPE NCC will need to publish an impact analysis for the proposal before it can be moved to the Review Phase. The goal of this analysis is to provide relevant supporting information to facilitate discussions on the proposal and provide some projections about the possible impact if it were to be accepted. This analysis will contain the following points:

• The RIPE NCC's understanding of the proposed policy
• Impact on the registry and addressing systems (including Internet resource consumption, aggregation and fragmentation)
• Impact on RIPE NCC operations/services/capacity
• Legal impact

place. Usually this will be the relevant working group mailing list.

Where discussion leads to an amendment of a proposal, an amended proposal will be published highlighting the changes. If there is significant comment and change suggested there may be multiple iterations of this process. Each published revision of a proposal will contain a history of changes to document this process.

The Working Group chair will set a limited time period for the discussion phase, not usually less than four weeks.

2.3 Review Phase

The purpose of the Review Phase is to review the full draft RIPE Document and impact analysis compiled at the end of the Discussion Phase. Further modifications to the draft RIPE Document can still be suggested during this phase. The Review Phase should last for a maximum of four weeks.

At the end of the Review Phase, the WG chairs determine, after summarising the state Following the conclusion of the discussion and inviting corrections, whether the WG has reached consensus Link: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282 . If the WG chairs decide that phase, the RIPE Working Group Chair determines whether the working group has reached consensus. If consensus has not been reached, then the WG chairs can proposer may decide to withdraw the proposal. Alternatively, the WG chairs can: 

• Send the proposal back to the Discussion Phase if the proposer is willing to continue to author the proposal and make the necessary changes according to feedback received from the community.
• Decide to have the draft RIPE Document edited and start a new Review Phase with a new version of the proposal.
• Extend the Review Phase for a maximum of four additional weeks if not enough community input was received.

a new round of discussion and documentation may occur.

The review phase will have a limited time period, but not more than four weeks.

2.4 Concluding Phase

Unless the proposal is withdrawn or sent back for further discussion or review, it enters the Concluding Phase. The WG chairs now issue a "Last Call for Comments" for the proposal on the WG mailing list and allow four weeks for comments. The RIPE NCC will send a copy of the 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

to the Policy Announce Mailing List (policy-announce@ripe.net Link: mailto:policy-announce@ripe.net ).

The purpose of this Last Call is to provide the community with a final opportunity to comment on the proposal. This is mainly intended for those who missed the previous two phases and want to oppose the proposal. It gives the community time after the relevant WG chairs declare rough consensus at the end of the Review Phase, so that suggestions for any final changes or objections to the proposal can be sent to the WG mailing list. At this stage, objections need to be justified and then addressed just as they must in the other phases.

When the deadline for comments has been reached, the WG chairs will evaluate the feedback received during this period and decide whether

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 there is no feedback from the community at this stage, this is likely to be regarded as consensus and it will mean the previous call of rough consensus from the WG chairs at the end of the Review Phase still holds. If

The last call period will last four weeks.

If a consensus has been achieved, the RIPE NCC will announce the decision of the WG chairs to the Policy Announce Mailing List and, if necessary, will implement the policy. RIPE Working Group Chairs and implement the policy, if needed.

If consensus has not been achieved at the end of this phase, the WG chairs can decide either to withdraw the proposal or to send it back to one of the previous phases. After a withdrawal, anyone the proposer (or anyone else) is free to

Appendix B - Policy Submission Template

Number: (The RIPE NCC will assign this)

Policy Proposal Name:

Author Details

1. name:
2. email:
3. organisation:

Proposal Version (assigned by the RIPE NCC):

Author:
a. name:
b. e-mail:
c. organisation:

Proposal Version: (Usually this will be version 1.0 for a new submission)

Submission Date:

Suggested RIPE WG Working Group for discussion and publication:

Proposal

Type:
1. new, modification or deletion
1. Policy Term:
   1. Temporary (time period)
   2. Indefinite
2. Summary of Proposal
3. Policy Text
   1. Current policy text (if modification):
   2. New policy text:
Rationale:
4. Motivation for the proposal

type:
a. new, modify, or delete.

Policy term:
a. temporary, permanent, or renewable.

Summary of proposal:

Policy text:
a. Current (if modify):
b. New:

Rationale:
a. Arguments supporting the proposal
b.

Arguments opposing the proposal