<div>Just to make it explicit. I disagree with the proposal. -- Ondřej Surý <<a href="mailto:ondrej@sury.org" target="_blank">ondrej@sury.org</a>> (He/Him) > On 7. 2. 2021, at 14:06, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list <<a href="mailto:ripe-list@ripe.net" target="_blank">ripe-list@ripe.net</a>> wrote: > > Hi all,</div><div> > > 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 ? > <a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com</a> > 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. > </div><div> > <2020-01-PDP-appeals_v1.7_reviewed-jordi .pdf> </div>-- <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">-- Ondřej Surý</div>