Thank you, Angela. It would be helpful to us if you could share summaries of future Code of Conduct related discussion in other RIRs, as and when they arise. Kind regards, Leo On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 3:56 AM Angela Dall'Ara <adallara@ripe.net> wrote:

Dear RIPE CoC TF,

As suggested by Leo Vegoda, I share with you some information about a policy proposal under discussion in AFRINIC, that contains suggestions about a procedure to be followed by the PDWG Co-Chairs in case of a breach of the CoC: AFPUB-2020-GEN-002-DRAFT04

On 17 November 2021, at the AFRINIC-34 Public Policy Meeting, the PDWG Co-Chair declared that this proposal draft DID NOT reach consensus and it has been sent back to the rpd mailing list for discussion. The authors are requested to refine it and eventually draft a new version considering the feedback received.

Please note that this proposal does not modify the AFRINIC Code of Conduct itself, but it would add, among other things:

1) a paragraph (here below) to describe only the procedure to be followed by the PDWG Co-Chairs in case they detect a breach of the CoC:

3.3.7 Individual Behaviors

Occasionally one or more individuals may engage in behaviour on a mailing list that, in the opinion of the working group co-chairs, is disruptive to the working group’s progress or goes against applicable Codes of Conduct. Unless the disruptive behaviour is severe enough that it must be stopped immediately, the co-chairs should attempt to discourage the disruptive behaviour by communicating directly with the offending individual. If the behaviour persists, the co-chairs should send at least one public warning on the mailing list. The warning should clearly expose what is being cautioned on the individual and the basis of co-chairs judgment. As last resort, and typically after one or more explicit warnings, and if the behaviour persists, the working group co-chairs may suspend the mailing list posting privileges of the disruptive individual for a period of not more than 30 days. The application of this restriction must be gradual. If the individual resumes with the same behaviour or worse, the restriction period may increase. Even while posting privileges are suspended, the individual must not be prevented from receiving messages posted to the list. Other Mailing list control solutions may be considered. The working group must have adopted these solutions. Like all other working group’s co-chairs' decisions, any suspension of posting privileges is subject to appeal.

*****

2) a paragraph (here below) to describe how to appeal against a decision taken by the PDWG Co-Chair:

3.3.10 Appeals

3.3.10.1 Suspension of posting privileges

Anyone whose privileges of posting to the mailing list have been suspended by the working group co-chairs may file an appeal against the decision to the AFRINIC CEO. The CEO chair will evaluate the circumstances, hear the co-chairs and complainers and decide. The CEO may direct that the Co-chairs decision be annulled if disproportioned or unjustified considering the severity of the behaviour. The CEO’s decision shall be final and binding.

*****

As a note: the objections to the proposal were not refererring specifically to the sections mentioned here above.

I will let you know about any change in the relevant text and the status of the proposal.

Kind regards, Angela

-- Angela Dall'Ara RIPE NCC Policy Officer

-- coc-tf mailing list coc-tf@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/coc-tf