All, the CoC draft version 3.0 [1], while it is called the "RIPE Meeting Code of Conduct", makes reference to the PDP as detailed below. - in "Scope" it claims authority over "RIPE mailing lists and the RIPE Forum" - "In cases where a report involves a RIPE Working Group Mailing List, the RIPE CoC Team will consult with the respective RIPE Working Group Chairs to gather context or any other relevant information that may help with its investigation." - One of the possible sanctions described is: "Not allowing someone to participate further in RIPE Meetings and/or *other RIPE community spaces*, for a set period or an indefinite period" Generally the tenor of the document is that, yes, it is intended to apply to the PDP-relevant processes and spaces and I don't think that fact is disputed. This is fundamentally incompatible with ripe-1 and ripe-710. If you, like me, consider those documents our "constitution", this CoC violates the letter as well as the spirit. If this reads like politics, that is because it *is*. 1) I consider ripe-1 and ripe-710 the "constitution" that provides for all of the below[2][3] 2) I consider the PDP and its WG mailing lists our "legislative". 3) The RIPE NCC could, in a very loose sense, be called our "executive". Like any democratic executive, it governs by the consent of the governed and is charged with implementing policy made through the PDP. 4) I consider the WG chair collective as some sort of combined "Speaker of Parliament", "Head of State" and "Constitutional Court". Their purpose is to steer the PDP and ensure that processes are followed in accordance to ripe-710 and ripe-1. They also determine that a consensus has been reached. (They "sign a proposal into law", so to speak.) 5) Through the PDP policy is developed, policy that affects every internet user in the RIPE Service Region. It affects more people and organisations than any law made even in the European Parliament. 6) According to ripe-710, the PDP is "open to all", "transparent", "from the bottom up" and "Conclusions are reached by consensus". To me, this means that every voice that wishes to speak must be heard. 7) Policy proposals, "bills" in other words, are often contentious, much like proposed law in other venues. Debate has, in the past, often been robust, raucous and occasionally vociferous. This is as it should be, this broad a community will rarely be of one mind and people have different ideas. Dissent, as in any democracy, is essential, even more so in a consensus-based system. How does the proposed CoC affect all this? For one, it is not transparent: Decisions are made behind closed doors, decisions that will - the draft document is clear on this - lead to voices being silenced and being silenced *silently*. It is not "open to all": it is only open to those who have not fallen afoul of the CoC or its enforcers. It is not consensus-based: "consensus of the approved" is worthless. It is not "bottom-up": the CoC Team sits at the very top of the chain and determines who can be a member of the RIPE community and who can't. Finally, it is open to abuse and, arguably, *designed* to be abused. It opens the way to anyone who is not happy ("comfortable" in the words of the draft) with the outcome or direction of a PDP discussion to rely on anonymous denunciation and intransparent processes to have all dissent silenced. The draft contains no reference to fairness or to a right of the accused to be heard and to defend themselves, which is a perversion of natural justice[4]. There is some kind of right-of-appeal, but it's an appeal to the same people who issued a "conviction" in the first place. Applied to the PDP and its participants, this, in political terms, is a putsch. It establishes a cabal that has the power to determine who may participate in the PDP in the first place. This may lead to the establishment of a sham consensus as all dissenting voices have been silenced, which the remaining community may not even be aware of. Policy developed under this system should be considered in violation of ripe-1 and ripe-710 and thus "unconstitutional". I'm not sure where the NCC stands in regard to obligations imposed on it by illegitimately created policy. This may be a question for the membership. There was a call for solutions, rather than just complaints, earlier. In this spirit I offer two possibilities: 1) Apply a "parliamentary privilege"[5] to PDP discussions. This means that only the WG chair collective has jurisdiction over PDP discussions and can "punish" participants - but with full transparency. 2) Let the "CoC team" investigate complaints but leave any decisions up to the WG chair collective. Again, any bans, temporary, or permanent must be fully transparent. As an aside, has anyone considered the difficulty of enforcing something like this on MLs where no identification requirement exists and someone "banned" can just re-sub under a different name/email address? In any case, I'd like to hear some discussion on this. Speak up. please. It may be the last chance you have. rgds, Sascha Luck [1] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-of... [2] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/roundtable/march-2005/presentation... [3] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege