This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[ripe-list] repeated and continued PDP violation - WG chairs delaying or denying proposal publication - new policy proposal "Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure"
- Previous message (by thread): [ripe-list] repeated and continued PDP violation - WG chairs delaying or denying proposal publication - new policy proposal "Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure"
- Next message (by thread): [ripe-list] repeated and continued PDP violation - WG chairs delaying or denying proposal publication - new policy proposal "Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Niall O'Reilly
niall.oreilly at ucd.ie
Tue Feb 9 14:58:22 CET 2021
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 at 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 — -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/attachments/20210209/545cb112/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [ripe-list] repeated and continued PDP violation - WG chairs delaying or denying proposal publication - new policy proposal "Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure"
- Next message (by thread): [ripe-list] repeated and continued PDP violation - WG chairs delaying or denying proposal publication - new policy proposal "Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]