5.2. Review Process

Technology changes rapidly today. In addition, DiEM25 is aware that, while we have endeavoured to cover as many fields of technology as possible, this paper has its main focus on Information Technology. Many other technologies (health and biotech related, new materials, energy, space and aviation, defense, CRISPR and other aspects of genetic technology, GMOs, IoT, VR/AR, Cybersecurity and encryption, and many others) merit attention as well. However, many policies in chapter 2 and chapter 3 address structures, such as innovation funding, that can apply across most technological domains. The focus on Information Technology does make sense, however, from the observation that “information” and the way it is handled, are key to any political system.

While Annex 1 provides guiding principles on how more specific answers in any field of technology can be formulated on the basis of this paper, it may not be sufficient. To address these two challenges – rapidly changing technology, and the inevitable need to address additional topics and perspectives – DiEM25 will carry out regular reviews of this paper.

The review will be on an annual basis, unless there is a meaningful event or request from the membership to speed up that process.

The review process will be lead by the Technological Sovereignty 1 DSC, and will take place annually in spring. It will consist of the publication of a questionnaire to the membership, asking for meaningful input in terms of modifications or new developments. If a discovery or scientific development makes any of the proposals substantially obsolete or contrary to our goals (for example, if cryptography is broken, or some equally cataclysmic event), it will be amended – corrected as soon as possible.

Based on the input received, an editing team will suggest modifications, updates or new additions to the Paper, and the updated version will be subject to a new vote of the membership. Depending on the complexity of the material received, this process may happen in one or two iterations, and additional feedback of the membership may be asked.

If no sufficient material changes are suggested, it is possible that no update is provided, in which case the previous version remains applicable.

This process will be done in a transparent manner; all steps of the process will be shared with the membership, and a procedure will be set up to ensure that, in case of disagreements, a transparent and open decision process will be used.