[ripe-list] Revised PDP - Draft version 3 for your review

Dear colleagues,

The deadline for comments for the revised PDP documents was set to
Friday this week (27 May).
Considering that we all have a lot to follow-up with after RIPE 84 and
that there is a holiday tomorrow in some countries, I would like to
extend the deadline to Monday, 30 May 2022 before 06:00 UTC.

Please let us know what you think so we can understand whether the
revised version enjoys community consensus.

Kind regards,
Mirjam Kühne
RIPE Chair


On 29/04/2022 14:15, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> The deadline for comments to the changes we proposed to the revised
> Policy Development Process (PDP) document has passed. We reviewed the
> suggestions we received and made some adjustments accordingly.
> The new version (v3) is here:
>
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/policy-development-process-in-ripe-v3
>
>
> At the top of the document you will find a link to a page showing the
> diff to v2 (and also a diff to ripe-710, the current PDP document).
>
> Below you find the main considerations and changes we made. In
> addition to that, the communication experts at the RIPE NCC cleaned up
> and tightened the language throughout the document to avoid
> misunderstandings.
>
> Before issuing a last call, we would like to ask you to review this
> new version again carefully and provide any feedback before 27 May
> 2022. In order to be able to build consensus, it is also important to
> let us know if you are happy with this revised version of the document.
>
> Kind regards,
> Mirjam Kühne
> RIPE Chair
> =========
>
> Main changes and considerations in revised PDP v3:
>
> 1. Introduction
> We removed the distinction between author and owner and the sentence
> related to that distinction in the introduction.
>
> 2. The Process
> Based on feedback received for earlier versions of this draft, we kept
> the strong suggestion to share an idea with the community before it
> enters the formal policy process. We clarified that this is not
> mandatory and strengthened the motivation.
>
> 2.1. Status of a proposal
> We reviewed the suggestion to add a fourth status “abandoned” in
> addition to open, accepted and withdrawn. We decided not to add
> “abandoned” as this case is already covered by "withdrawn" or “open”
> (in case someone else picks up the proposal).
>
> 4. Appeals Process
> We did not see enough support for introducing a separate appeals body.
> But based on experience with the first appeal, the entire appeals
> process is defined a lot more clearly now.
>
> 5. Changes to the PDP
> We received a comment that changes to the PDP should follow the same
> process as other documents in RIPE. RIPE documents are typically
> agreed by community consensus. While a specific, formal process has
> been agreed for development of RIPE policy, enthusiasm in the
> community for using this process for other RIPE documents is currently
> low. Therefore we kept section 5. that describes how the PDP document
> is changed through community consensus.
>
>
>