[ripe-list] CoC and the PDP

All,

the CoC draft version 3.0 [1], while it is called the "RIPE Meeting
Code of Conduct", makes reference to the PDP as detailed below.

- in "Scope" it claims authority over "RIPE mailing lists and the
  RIPE Forum"
- "In cases where a report involves a RIPE Working Group Mailing
  List, the RIPE CoC Team will consult with the respective RIPE
Working Group Chairs to gather context or any other relevant
information that may help with its investigation."
- One of the possible sanctions described is: "Not allowing
  someone to participate further in RIPE Meetings and/or *other
RIPE community spaces*, for a set period or an indefinite period"

Generally the tenor of the document is that, yes, it is intended
to apply to the PDP-relevant processes and spaces and I don't
think that fact is disputed.

This is fundamentally incompatible with ripe-1 and ripe-710. If
you, like me, consider those documents our "constitution", this
CoC violates the letter as well as the spirit. If this reads like
politics, that is because it *is*. 

1) I consider ripe-1 and ripe-710 the "constitution" that
provides for all of the below[2][3]

2) I consider the PDP and its WG mailing lists our "legislative". 

3) The RIPE NCC could, in a very loose sense, be called our
"executive". Like any democratic executive, it governs by the
consent of the governed and is charged with implementing policy
made through the PDP.

4) I consider the WG chair collective as some sort of combined
"Speaker of Parliament", "Head of State" and "Constitutional
Court". Their purpose is to steer the PDP and ensure that
processes are followed in accordance to ripe-710 and ripe-1. They
also determine that a consensus has been reached. (They "sign a
proposal into law", so to speak.) 

5) Through the PDP policy is developed, policy that affects every
internet user in the RIPE Service Region. It affects more people
and organisations than any law made even in the European
Parliament. 

6) According to ripe-710, the PDP is "open to all",
"transparent", "from the bottom up" and "Conclusions are reached
by consensus". To me, this means that every voice that wishes to
speak must be heard. 

7) Policy proposals, "bills" in other words, are often
contentious, much like proposed law in other venues. Debate has,
in the past, often been robust, raucous and occasionally
vociferous. This is as it should be, this broad a community will
rarely be of one mind and people have different ideas. Dissent,
as in any democracy, is essential, even more so in a
consensus-based system.

How does the proposed CoC affect all this? For one, it is not
transparent: Decisions are made behind closed doors, decisions
that will - the draft document is clear on this - lead to voices
being silenced and being silenced *silently*. It is not "open to
all": it is only open to those who have not fallen afoul of the
CoC or its enforcers. It is not consensus-based: "consensus of the
approved" is worthless. It is not "bottom-up": the CoC Team sits
at the very top of the chain and determines who can be a member
of the RIPE community and who can't.
Finally, it is open to abuse and, arguably, *designed* to be
abused. It opens the way to anyone who is not happy
("comfortable" in the words of the draft) with the outcome or
direction of a PDP discussion to rely on anonymous denunciation
and intransparent processes to have all dissent silenced.
The draft contains no reference to fairness or to a right of the
accused to be heard and to defend themselves, which is a
perversion of natural justice[4]. There is some kind of
right-of-appeal, but it's an appeal to the same people who issued
a "conviction" in the first place.

Applied to the PDP and its participants, this, in political
terms, is a putsch. It establishes a cabal that has the power to
determine who may participate in the PDP in the first place. This
may lead to the establishment of a sham consensus as all
dissenting voices have been silenced, which the remaining
community may not even be aware of. 

Policy developed under this system should be considered in
violation of ripe-1 and ripe-710 and thus "unconstitutional".

I'm not sure where the NCC stands in regard to obligations
imposed on it by illegitimately created policy. This may be a
question for the membership.

There was a call for solutions, rather than just complaints,
earlier. In this spirit I offer two possibilities:

1) Apply a "parliamentary privilege"[5] to PDP discussions. This
means that only the WG chair collective has jurisdiction over PDP
discussions and can "punish" participants - but with full
transparency.   
2) Let the "CoC team" investigate complaints but leave any
decisions up to the WG chair collective. Again, any bans,
temporary, or permanent must be fully transparent.

As an aside, has anyone considered the difficulty of enforcing
something like this on MLs where no identification requirement
exists and someone "banned" can just re-sub under a different
name/email address?

In any case, I'd like to hear some discussion on this. Speak up.
please. It may be the last chance you have.

rgds,
Sascha Luck

[1] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-of-conduct-3-0-draft
[2] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/roundtable/march-2005/presentations/ripe-and-the-policy-development-processes
[3] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege