Hi Mirjam, all, With all the respect "come on!".
1st clarification: I've not doubted about the work of the policy officer, I think I made clear that they did their job very well and I defended that it is important that they (and the relevant WG chairs) provide inputs since day one and it means that the published version of the proposal is cleaner, may already resolve some probably issues, etc., etc. I clearly stated that this is the way done in all the RIRs since many years ago. 2nd clarification: There is no lack of problem statement. In fact, the documents that you sent to the list DEMONSTRATE IT. You made observations about the lack of clarity in the self-recusation. My proposal not only resolves that, but also ensures that someone could be recused by the appellant, which is an obvious and very clear problem. And in addition to that, it is clear that having the same "group of people" (WGCC) being the Appeal Committee, instead of an independent set of people, IT IS A BIG PROBLEM. 3rd clarification: Even if it was true that there is not a clear problem statement, can you tell me what exact text of the PDP allows the chairs to delay or deny the publication of a proposal? Otherwise, I MUST sustain my point here, there is persistent violation of the PDP until my proposal is formally published. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 9/2/21 12:06, "ripe-list en nombre de Mirjam Kuehne" <[email protected] en nombre de [email protected]> escribió: Dear colleagues, Listening to the discussion and without going into detail about the proposal Jordi sent to the list, I would like to clarify a few things about the process. After Jordi sent his policy proposal to the RIPE NCC on 5 October 2020, the Policy Officer and the RIPE Chair Team worked extensively with the proposer on the content and language of the proposal. We specifically discussed the part of the proposal that referred to RIPE NCC bodies and suggested improvements to make the proposal more suitable for submission. During this process, the proposal went through a number of iterations, but we remained concerned about the lack of a clear problem statement. At the same time we felt it was not wise to propose a change to the very process we were reviewing. Therefore we suggested to defer the publication of the policy proposal until the review of the appeal has been finalised. After having looked more thoroughly at the Policy Development Process and the review of the appeal, the RIPE Chair communicated to the proposer on 1 December: “Therefore Niall and I believe that the RIPE Policy Development Process already adequately excludes participation in its appeal process by the people responsible for the decision under appeal. We may have missed something; if so, we would be glad to see a problem statement which makes this clear.” In the meantime we worked with all parties involved in the appeal on a review of the appeals process. That review has now been published as a draft document: https://www.ripe.net/publications/draft-and-discussion-files/review-of-the-ripe-appeals-procedure together with a thorough analysis of the evolution of the PDP: https://www.ripe.net/publications/draft-and-discussion-files/evolution-of-the-ripe-policy-development-process We are currently working with the RIPE NCC to have both documents published as RIPE documents. As soon as that is done, we would like to have a community-wide discussion about the recommendations made in these documents. I would like to stress that the RIPE NCC Policy Officer followed the process very diligently. She provided excellent support to the proposer and the RIPE Chair Team and cannot be blamed in any way for delaying the publication of the proposal. Also, at no time was the RIPE NCC trying to influence the RIPE policy process. Kind Regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE Chair ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com 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.
