[ripe-list] Three Appeals

[Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list]

Web version:

https://web.karrenberg.net/krakowappeal.html

# Three Appeals

I have observed the recent discussions in the community and the RIPE NCC 
membership. Here are three personal appeals for these discussion as we meet in 
Krakow and on the Net.

## === Modern Version ===

### 1. Be Proud of RIPE

Let us be proud! Together we have built a strong community and an exemplary way 
of self governance. Let us cherish what we have and develop it further by 
consensus.

### 2. For a Strong RIPE NCC

Let us support the  RIPE NCC. A strong RIPE NCC is more than just a registry: 
it is a neutral place where the community does things together.  Let us avoid 
weakening it by exaggerating its shortcomings but rather evolve it in 
deliberate steps by consensus. A strong RIPE NCC benefits everyone.

### 3. No Fake Solutions

Let us not fall for divisive rhetoric and seemingly easy and convenient 
solutions. Most everyone wants to pay less for the same benefit. More often 
than not, after deciding to pay less  one discovers that the benefit is not 
quite the same. Let us not focus on the cost first but constructively build 
consensus to evolve the RIPE NCC in the direction we want and only then decide 
how we split the costs.


## === Classic Version ===

## Who is talking?

For those who do not know me well, here is my background so you know where I 
come from when I speak up: My name is [Daniel 
Karrenberg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Karrenberg). I have been 
involved with RIPE and the RIPE NCC from the very beginning. I have [helped to 
create RIPE in 
1989](https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-1/)  while I 
was busy bringing the Internet to the region. I helped to create the [proposal 
for a RIPE NCC](https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-019/). In 1992 I 
took responsibility for [implementing that 
proposal](https://labs.ripe.net/author/dfk/25-years-of-the-ripe-ncc-the-first-hours/)
 and became the first employee of the RIPE NCC and its first CEO. I helped to 
create [the initial versions of many RIPE NCC 
services](https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-062/) including the first 
two versions of the RIPE Database software. During the first year of the RIPE 
NCC the first Internet boom hit and the RIPE NCC needed to meet entirely 
unforeseen demands. I resisted the temptations of the boom and decided to stick 
with the NCC during this challenging time.

At the start of this century I stepped down as CEO and went on to help build 
new RIPE NCC sevices, such as [RIPE 
RIS](https://www.ripe.net/analyse/internet-measurements/routing-information-service-ris/),
 [RIPE Atlas](https://atlas.ripe.net/) and [RIPEStat](https://stat.ripe.net/). 
During the following decade I stepped back from operational resposibilities and 
became an advisor to the RIPE NCC CEO; I still advise him on a part-time basis 
which makes me the [longest serving RIPE NCC 
employee](https://www.ripe.net/media/documents/Daniel_Karrenberg_30_Years_at_the_RIPE_NCC.pdf).
 Recently I have helped to build consensus about RIPE self governance by 
authoring documents describing [the role of the RIPE 
Chair](https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-714/) and [the RIPE Chair 
selection process](https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-787/). I have 
subsequently led the first round of that process as chair of the [2020 RIPE 
Nominating Committee](https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-762/). 

Currently, on request of the RIPE Chair, I am drafting a document on the 
community consensus about the current state of the relationship between RIPE 
and the RIPE NCC. I am also looking forward to advise the next RIPE Nominating 
Committee in my role as the *previous chair*. 

So far my history with this community. This should let you draw your own 
colclusions about my biases and the merit of what I have to say. Now for the 
longer version of my appeals:

## 1. Be Proud of RIPE

Let us be proud! Together we have built a strong community and an exemplary way 
of self governance. Let us cherish what we have and develop it further by 
consensus.

We are currently facing many challenges such as

  - renewing our community and bringing in young people,
  - improving our leadership, f.i. working group chairs,
  - operating in a climate of raising geopolitical tensions and sanctions,
  - IPv4 addresses becoming a commodity,
  - defending against attacks on the RIR system such as the one on AFRINIC,
  - evolving the relationship between RIPE and RIPE NCC - BoF in Krakow on 
Tuesday evening -,
  - . . .
  
At the same time the climate of public discourse in general has become more 
hostile and divisive. Whole countries are facing a divided population, 
sometimes close to 50/50. People concentrate more on what divides them rather 
than on what unites them. Ironically some believe that our very Internet has 
been a major instrument for this to happen.

We should not follow this trend! I fear that significant

Re: [ripe-list] Thank you and goodbye

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Nathalie,

Your contributions to both the RIPE community and the RIPE NCC will not 
be forgotten. I am grateful for all of them and for your good company.


Love, health and happiness!

Daniel

--

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your 
subscription options, please visit: 
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list

Re: [ripe-list] Re-opened Last Call for Draft Document: RIPE NCC Staff Participation in the RIPE Community

[Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list]

Disclosure: I am one of the founders of RIPE and both the first and a 
current employee of the RIPE NCC. I have also been the chair of the 2020 
Nominating Committee that made the recommendation mentioned in the document.


I agree with form and content of this draft. In my humble opinion it 
expresses the consensus that I perceive to exist in the RIPE community. 
It is encouraging that one of the authors is both a long standing and 
well respected member of the community as well as the current CEO of the 
RIPE NCC.


Well done!

Daniel

PS: I do recognise that the times when we were a community first and had 
corporate (governance) roles second are long gone. However the 
underlying spirit has served our community well, both in the past and at 
present.


We have nothing at all to gain from erecting excessive formal barriers 
that prevent individuals from doing the right thing. Oftentimes such 
barriers are an invitation to be gamed in service of particular agendas. 
Even worse such rules very often fuel cynical attitudes even among 
people who are very capable and would rather use their time and energy 
constructively.


As a community we have much to gain and little to loose by welcoming 
RIPE NCC staff to participate fully and -of course- transparently in the 
work we do.


On the other hand we have much to loose and little to gain by blindly 
copying behaviours and rules from public or corporate governance that do 
not fit our situation.


Daniel


On 21-07-2023 17:32, Niall O'Reilly wrote:

Dear colleagues,

On 14 Jul 2023, at 13:29, I wrote:


Unless there is strong feedback from others in the community not to bother, I 
will work with the other authors to revise the draft accordingly. After that, 
Mirjam or I will announce a fresh last-call period.


The revised draft is now available here:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-ncc-staff-participation-in-the-ripe-community-draft-v2

I take the opportunity to announce a re-opened last call period,
to close at 04:00 UTC on Monday, 4 September 2023.

Best regards,

Niall O'Reilly,
RIPE Vice-Chair



--

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your 
subscription options, please visit: 
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list

Re: [ripe-list] BoF on Tuesday Evening: The Impact of the Latest Developments in Artificial Intelligence on the RIPE Community

[Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list]

I am still looking for a couple of volunteers to kick things off. Please 
contect me off listor speak to me at the meeting.


My cntributions of reading material:

https://aiindex.stanford.edu/report/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_on_Artificial_Intelligence

https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2023/04/11/the-problems-with-a-moratorium-on-training-large-ai-systems/

Daniel



On 17-05-2023 11:01, Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list wrote:

Dear colleagues,

There will be a BoF on Tuesday evening at  RIPE86.  I proposed it to the 
PC like this:


"We suspect that many RIPE participants are paying attention to the 
increased discussions about AI within society as-a-whole. Therefore we 
propose to reserve a space in the meeting agenda for participants to 
share their opinions about this and hear the views of their peers. We 
suggest to consider the impact on the RIPE community as a way to frame 
the discussion. We do not propose new formal work by the community at 
this point in time."


The goal  is an exchange of opinions and ideas as a way for everyone to 
learn and enhance their own views on the subject. We do not want long 
monologues and the optimal outcome is a lively and entertaining discussion.


Therefore the format will be that of a 'speed discussion'. If at all 
possible we want to avoid sitting facing the stage but rather in 
something resembling a circle as far as the layout of the room permits. 
In order to avoid microphone queues there will be two tokens in the room 
passed from one speaker to the next. We will not use microphones unless 
the group is too big.


People will get to speak for no more than two minutes each followed by a 
two minute question and discussion period. If the discussion is fruitful 
the chair may extend it for another two minutes. Then the next person 
will get to speak for two minutes, ... . We will have a traffic light 
clock to keep the time and everyone will strictly respect the timing.


We aim for an open and respectful discussion among peers. After the 
discussion we ask everyone not to reveal who said what to people who 
have not been present. It is OK to report *what* was said but not *who* 
said it. If the discussion is as good as we hope, we may publish a short 
report to the community.


I am looking for two or three people to commit to speaking first to get 
things going. Please contact me off list.


Also, if you have suggestions for reading material about the subject, 
please share them in this thread.


I am very much looking forward to see you in the BoF.

Daniel

RIPE co-founder,
first and current employee of the RIPE NCC,
speaking only for himself.



--

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your 
subscription options, please visit: 
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list

[ripe-list] BoF on Tuesday Evening: The Impact of the Latest Developments in Artificial Intelligence on the RIPE Community

[Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list]

Dear colleagues,

There will be a BoF on Tuesday evening at  RIPE86.  I proposed it to the 
PC like this:


"We suspect that many RIPE participants are paying attention to the 
increased discussions about AI within society as-a-whole. Therefore we 
propose to reserve a space in the meeting agenda for participants to 
share their opinions about this and hear the views of their peers. We 
suggest to consider the impact on the RIPE community as a way to frame 
the discussion. We do not propose new formal work by the community at 
this point in time."


The goal  is an exchange of opinions and ideas as a way for everyone to 
learn and enhance their own views on the subject. We do not want long 
monologues and the optimal outcome is a lively and entertaining discussion.


Therefore the format will be that of a 'speed discussion'. If at all 
possible we want to avoid sitting facing the stage but rather in 
something resembling a circle as far as the layout of the room permits. 
In order to avoid microphone queues there will be two tokens in the room 
passed from one speaker to the next. We will not use microphones unless 
the group is too big.


People will get to speak for no more than two minutes each followed by a 
two minute question and discussion period. If the discussion is fruitful 
the chair may extend it for another two minutes. Then the next person 
will get to speak for two minutes, ... . We will have a traffic light 
clock to keep the time and everyone will strictly respect the timing.


We aim for an open and respectful discussion among peers. After the 
discussion we ask everyone not to reveal who said what to people who 
have not been present. It is OK to report *what* was said but not *who* 
said it. If the discussion is as good as we hope, we may publish a short 
report to the community.


I am looking for two or three people to commit to speaking first to get 
things going. Please contact me off list.


Also, if you have suggestions for reading material about the subject, 
please share them in this thread.


I am very much looking forward to see you in the BoF.

Daniel

RIPE co-founder,
first and current employee of the RIPE NCC,
speaking only for himself.

--

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your 
subscription options, please visit: 
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list

Re: [ripe-list] DRAFT: Principles for Remuneration of the RIPE Chairs

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Kurtis,colleagues,

this is indeedone of the scenarios where the remuneration 
arrangementwouldnot work.We should not put a specific way to deal with 
situations like this in the document because we cannot foresee the 
details of the specific situation and we do have the governance 
structures in placeto take appropriate action. See below for a more 
verbose version of my thoughts on this.


Best

Daniel

--

In the arrangement described in the draft, the RIPE community requests 
that the RIPE NCC provide remuneration for the RIPE Chairs under the 
RIPE NCC's own responsibility and corporate governance. The RIPE NCC has 
indicated that it is prepared to accept this responsibility and in 
practice it already does this.


The RIPE NCC could inform the RIPE community that it cannot provide 
remuneration for the RIPE Chairs at any time and for any reason 
including the specific scenario you describe. Given the governance 
structure of the RIPE NCC this will not likely be an ad-hoc or arbitrary 
decision. It would then be up to the RIPE community to evaluate the 
situation at hand and either seek other arrangements for the 
remuneration of the RIPE Chairs or recall them.


The specific procedure you propose to deal with one of these 
casesrequires that the NomCom become a permanent committee which 
requires extra commitment from volunteers; it also provides an obvious 
and pre-agreed way for the RIPE NCC to influence the selection of the 
RIPE leadership. I do not think we should go there.


Given the close relations between the RIPE NCC and the RIPE community 
and the formal liaison between the RIPE NCC board and the RIPE NomCom I 
consider the language in the draft sufficient for this to work and to 
prevent accidents.


Daniel
a RIPE NCC employee, speaking for himself as a long time RIPE 
participant and former RIPE NomCom chair





On 09-03-2023 11:36, Kurtis Lindqvist wrote:


Niall,

Thank you for this. I think this is fine, but I have one comment :


On 7 Mar 2023, at 16:40, Niall O'Reilly  wrote:

The community requests the RIPE NCC Executive Board take responsibility
for implementing these concrete arrangements.

The community requests that the RIPE NCC continues to disclose the
total cost of RIPE Chair support including expenses and any
remuneration.

This sets out that the RIPE NCC Executive Board essentially will 
negotiate an appropriate remuneration for the Chair(s). However, it 
doesn’t say what happens if they fail to reach an agreement. May I 
suggest that we add some wording on this, for example that "if the EB 
does not feel the remuneration requested by a chair is resonable or 
for other reasons an agreement can not be made, this is to be referred 
back to the Nomcom to consider if other candidates are better to be 
considered or not” or something similar.


- kurtis -




--

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your 
subscription options, please visit: 
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list

[ripe-list] Polishing of RIPE Chair Selection Process

[Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list]

Greetings,

The RIPE NomCom 2020 recommended to make the following improvements to 
the RIPE Chair selection process [ripe-762]:


  Consider changing ripe-728 to codify the use of a reserve list of
volunteers in case voting members resign from the committee.

  Consider clarifying the example time-lines in ripe-727 and ripe-728
in the light of experience

On request of the RIPE Chair I have drafted the attached revisions to 
these documents implementing these recommendations.


Notes:

Using a reserve list is not without alternatives. The IETF has had much 
relevant discussion about 'gaming' the volunteer selection process 
recently; see 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/eligibility-discuss/# . My 
experience as NomCom chair strongly suggests to avoid complicating the 
procedures beyond the endurance of the volunteers involved. A simple 
reserve list is sufficient for our purposes.


A wording change in ripe-728 tightens the time for getting the NomCom 
organised from 60 days prior to the consultation RIPE meeting to 90 days 
prior. This is necessary to enable the full NomCom rather than just the 
NomCom chair to issue the call for nominations.


The time line appendix should be removed entirely from ripe-728 and the 
one in ripe-727 should be replaced with the attached one.



Let's avoid cluttering the ripe-list and discuss this over on our 
venerable ripe-chair-discuss list please.


Daniel



*** ripe-728.md 2022-06-29 11:08:57.690408549 +0200
--- ripe-728v2.md   2022-10-17 09:22:15.400096788 +0200
***
*** 1,8 
  # The RIPE Nominating Committee
  
  Authors: Hans Petter Holen, Mirjam Kühne, Daniel Karrenberg, Anna Wilson
! Document ID: ripe-728
! Date: August 2019
  
  
  ### IETF Copyright
--- 1,10 
+ complete the ???s!
+ 
  # The RIPE Nominating Committee
  
  Authors: Hans Petter Holen, Mirjam Kühne, Daniel Karrenberg, Anna Wilson
! Document ID: ripe-???
! Date: ???
  
  
  ### IETF Copyright
***
*** 354,360 
  ###  Timeline
  
  *The completion of the process of selecting and organizing the members
! of the nominating committee is due* 60 days before the Consultation RIPE 
Meeting.
  
  ### Term
  
--- 356,362 
  ###  Timeline
  
  *The completion of the process of selecting and organizing the members
! of the nominating committee is due* 90 days before the Consultation RIPE 
Meeting.
  
  ### Term
  
***
*** 650,664 
  names of volunteers and announces the members of the nominating
  committee.*
  
  *No more than two volunteers with the same primary affiliation may be
! selected for the nominating committee.  The Chair reviews the primary
  affiliation of each volunteer selected by the method in turn.  If the
  primary affiliation for a volunteer is the same as two previously
  selected volunteers, that volunteer is removed from consideration and
  the method is repeated to identify the next eligible volunteer.*
  
! *There must be at least two announcements of all members of the
! nominating committee.*
  
  *The first announcement should occur as soon after the random
  selection as is reasonable for the Chair.  The community must have at
--- 652,667 
  names of volunteers and announces the members of the nominating
  committee.*
  
+ From the remaining pool of volunteers the chair randomly selects an ordered 
reserve list of volunteers to fill vacancies on the committee.
+ 
  *No more than two volunteers with the same primary affiliation may be
! selected. The Chair reviews the primary
  affiliation of each volunteer selected by the method in turn.  If the
  primary affiliation for a volunteer is the same as two previously
  selected volunteers, that volunteer is removed from consideration and
  the method is repeated to identify the next eligible volunteer.*
  
! *There must be at least two announcements of all selected volunteers.*
  
  *The first announcement should occur as soon after the random
  selection as is reasonable for the Chair.  The community must have at
***
*** 692,701 
 chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board
 *as stated elsewhere in this document.*
  
!  + *If the Chair is unable to contact a voting volunteer, the Chair
!must repeat the random selection process in order to replace the
!unavailable volunteer.  There should be at least one day between
!the announcement of the iteration and the selection process.*
  
  *After at least one week and confirming that 10 voting volunteers are
  ready to serve, the Chair makes the second announcement of the
--- 695,701 
 chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board
 *as stated elsewhere in this document.*
  
!  + *If the Chair is unable to contact a voting volunteer, the Chair* will 
announce this and contact the first person on the reserve list. 
  
  *After at least one week and confirming that 10 voting volunteers are
  ready to serve, the Chair makes the second announcement of the
***
*** 845,854

Re: [ripe-list] Proposed Changes to the Draft Code of Conduct Process

[Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list]

Leo, task force members,

let's remember that we have consensus on the code of conduct itself and 
that we are discussing the implementation. Not all ist lost. ;-)


I observe some pretty strong reactions  requesting 'due process' from 
long standing, constructive and productive members of the community. 
This is serious. There is a risk that some of these good people might 
stop contributing if we proceed with this draft procedure document. We 
do not want to loose good people for the sake of being more inclusive.


Upon reflection it appears to me that the requests for 'due process' may 
not come from a desire for a quasi legal process but from a *perception* 
that the the *process*, not the code,  is biased against the community 
member whose behaviour is being reported.


Here are a number of suggestions to address this:

1. Make it explicit that it is part of the process to apply the 
'Discretion to Reject Reports' from the code. It may be sufficient to 
just mention this at the part of the assessment process in step 3.


2. Re-draft the process to focus on stopping the *behaviour* that is 
violating the code of conduct and not on sanctioning people. This is an 
important difference.


3. Add more explicit mechanisms for the person whose behaviour is being 
reported to be heard. This is especially important if more serious 
actions are being considered.  Maybe offer them to choose a member of 
the CoC team to hear their side of the story and add that member to the 
assessment team?


Less important but worth considering: if I understand the proposed 
process correctly, each and every report would lead to the creation of a 
new assessment group. I perceive this as very heavy and resource 
intensive. A perfect DoS target! In my opinion the process should allow 
for some sort of triage should the load get too high. Pragmatism should 
be explicitly allowed. For instance if the load gets high a screening 
team could be assembled from members of the CoC team at least for each 
RIPE meeting or maybe for a certain time period. This screening team 
could then filter out obviously spurious reports and maybe quickly deal 
with minor incidents.


Nit: Improve the 'Introduction' sections with explicit references to the 
other relevant documents such as the CoC itself and a clear scoping of 
the document itself. Maybe rename it 'Scope'?


I appreciate your personal efforts and the efforts of the task force.

Daniel


--

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your 
subscription options, please visit: 
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list

Re: [ripe-list] Russia

[Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list]

On 14-08-2022 00:01, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote ...

The archives have sufficient examples of the waste of bandwidth by this 
person. Let's save everyone's time and continue to ignore his provocations.


Daniel


--

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your 
subscription options, please visit: 
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list

Re: [ripe-list] New on the RIPE Labs Podcast: Approaching the RIPE Gender Data Gap

[Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list]

On 09-06-2022 11:49, Alun Davies wrote:

Dear colleagues,

After the Women in Tech session at RIPE 84, Anastasiya Pak from the RIPE NCC 
caught up with Shane Kerr to hear more about his attempts to measure the gender 
gap at RIPE Meetings. In this latest episode of the RIPE Labs podcast, hear 
more about the goals behind this and the challenges that come with approaching 
the RIPE gender data gap:

https://labs.ripe.net/author/anastasiya-pak/approaching-the-ripe-gender-data-gap/

Best regards,

Alun Davies
RIPE Labs Editor
RIPE NCC



Deliberate change requires setting goals, working towards them and 
checking progress. So what diversity goals should we set ourselves?
In gender diversity the popular/simplistic goal has been to reflect 
world population: classical 50/50 or contemporary with more categories. 
Shane also voices this in the podcast.


Is this the right benchmark? Shouldn't we set goals based on the 
diversity of groups that are closer to our community? I have seen some 
organisations setting diversity goals based on current ratios: "We will 
double the percentage of female graduates in five years time."  Others 
base their goals on statistics of a larger population they serve: "We 
will have double the percentage of female graduates compared with the 
average of similar programs in Europe."


I strongly believe we should set ourselves realistic goals. I also 
believe that diversity has other parameters than gender and that our 
efforts on gender diversity should not lead to a loss of other diversity 
we have already achieved.


Daniel

--

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your 
subscription options, please visit: 
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Code of Conduct Process - Status

[Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list]

On 31-05-2022 17:21, Leo Vegoda wrote:

Hi,

I asked this list in April [1] for input on the draft Code of Conduct
Process. We've not had any feedback yet, which makes it difficult to
know how our draft should change or whether it is good enough.

Please take a look at the draft and either identify areas where we
need to improve it or send a simple statement of support.

We also held a BoF at RIPE 84. We discussed [2] recruiting for the
team that will use this process. The recording has been published and
runs slightly over 30 minutes. If you weren't able to attend the BoF
but have thoughts to share with the TF, please either send them here
or to coc...@ripe.net. Both lists are publicly archived.

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda

[1] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2022-April/002513.html
[2] https://ripe84.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/bofs/#tues




Leo and TF members,

thank you for spending time and effort on this. It certainly is 
something that is not fun by any description.


Here are some suggestions from the perspective of a long time RIPE 
participant and author of a few RIPE documents:


- add references to relevant RIPE documents such as the CoC itself, the 
RIPE ToR, maybe others


- add a section/appendix describing the task force and the process by 
which the document was written and how consensus was/will be 
established. examples: ripe-714, ripe-727 'genesis'


- add a document that describes the process for constituting the 'CoC 
Team' and for adding/removing people. without this document it is 
difficult to evaluate a process document.


- for any action involving removal from events the document should be 
explicit that such actions have to be enforced by the meeting organiser 
and describe how this works. get explicit agreement from the RIPE NCC to 
enforce these actions and obligate third party hosts to enforce them. 
mention this in the document. sidestepping this is a recipe for future 
trouble.


- for any action beyond very temporary removals/bans the RIPE chair 
needs to make the final decision. removing people from the community is 
something that the RIPE chair should not delegate. spirit([ripe-714]), 
answer to question 1 of labs article


- i am not sure that it is a good idea to retain personal data of the 
'subject of the report' in cases where no CoC violation is found. 
otherwise the data retention proposed looks ok to me.

answer to question 2 of labs article.

- add the requirement for a 'transparency report' on actions by the CoC 
team. The short report in Berlin was a good start.


Again, thanks and respect for the work you all put in. These are just 
suggestions. I feel much too greybearded to argue about this stuff. 
Happy to explain/expand if this is too terse for full comprehension. ;-)


Daniel






--

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your 
subscription options, please visit: 
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list

Re: [ripe-list] 30 Years Ago Today

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 02-04-2022 18:26, Lars-Johan Liman wrote:

Daniel,

My warm thanks to you, and "the two others". You may have a reason for
not naming them, so I don't either, but all three of you remain in my
warm respect.

Thank you Liman. Anne Lord and Marten Terpstra are named in the 
references and if memory serves they both started a month later in May. ;-)


Daniel

--

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your 
subscription options, please visit: 
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list

[ripe-list] 30 Years Ago Today

[Daniel Karrenberg]

  
  
Dear RIPE colleagues and fellow RIPE NCC staff,
  
  30 years ago today the RIPE NCC, the first of the RIRs, opened its
  virtual doors.
  Yes it was on April 2nd and not a day earlier as is often wrongly
  reported. This is a fact! I was there. The term 'post-factual' was
  just being invented.
  
  An NCC had already been proposed two years earlier: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-019
  . Our purpose, our relationship with RIPE and many of our tasks
  today are already expressed clearly in that proposal.  The very
  first RIPE NCC Activity Plan was ready a year before the start: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-035
  . It took a year to collect the initial funds, a host organisation
  and office space.
  
  
  Some friends suggested strongly that I should lead the set-up of
  the RIPE NCC. I got the job and signed up for one year, fully
  expecting to return to an academic career in computer science. The
  rest is, as the saying goes, history. 

By the way, the history of the RIPE NCC is well documented in
  quarterly and annual reports and other RIPE documents: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs
  .
  We started with three people and five computers. I have described
  the first hours from a geeky perspective five years ago: https://labs.ripe.net/author/dfk/25-years-of-the-ripe-ncc-the-first-hours/
  .
  At the same time we published a short summary of the history with
  a photograph of the staff in 1996:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/celebrating-25-years-of-the-ripe-ncc
  .
  
  Together we have come a long way. I am proud of all of you, past
  and present, who have made the RIPE NCC a success. I am  proud of
  the strong community we have built and nourished. Recently we have
  mastered the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and we are coping
  with conflict and terrible wars in our region. I am confident that
  with our combined efforts both RIPE and the RIPE NCC will thrive
  for a long time to come.
  
  
  Thank you all, past and present staff, past and present board
  members, the RIPE community, the membership and all other
  supporters!
  
  
  Daniel

  


-- 

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your 
subscription options, please visit: 
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list

Re: [ripe-list] Draft Document: RIPE Task Forces - Definition and Guidelines - v3

[Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list]

Much improved!

I suggest to make the RIPE NCC staff support optional. It may not be 
necessery or even appropriate in some cases.



Either way the document has my support.

Daniel



--

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your 
subscription options, please visit: 
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list

Re: [ripe-list] statement on infrastructure governance sanctions regime

[Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list]

We should have that discussion here and take time to consider these 
ideas very very carefully.


After a quick first reading my first reaction is: The analysis of 
unintended consequences of past attempts is good. Proposing new 
'voluntary' mechanisms does not follow from that. Introducing 
coordinated destruction of connectivity at the IP level for other than 
operational reasons is not likely to have many positive results. First 
and foremost the unintended bad consequences need very careful 
consideration. It is not a good idea to make such fundamental changes to 
the Internet infrastructure at a time when emotions run high.


I hope that we are strong enough to make decisions at a time of less 
conflict and emotions.


In the meantime please sign https://keepitopen.net/ .
It would be a bad time for this community when we cannot agree to keep 
the basic Infrastructure of the Internet connected as much as we can.


Daniel

On 10-03-2022 13:10, Niels ten Oever wrote:

Dear all,

With a diverse group of actors we made a statement on what we think an 
internet infrastructure governance sanctions regime should look like.


Looking forward to discuss it with you.

Statement:
https://www.pch.net/resources/Papers/Multistakeholder-Imposition-of-Internet-Sanctions.pdf 
[PDF]


Twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/nielstenoever/status/1501821745631797249

Press:
https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2022/03/10/internet_russia_sanctions/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/10/internet-russia-sanctions-proposal/ 

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-technology-business-europe-8909762f92d1982acb6fca4e6dc2d183 



Plain text version of the statement:

Thursday, March 10, 2022
The Hague

Multistakeholder Imposition of Internet Sanctions

Executive Summary

The invasion of Ukraine poses a new challenge for multistakeholder 
Internet infrastructure governance. In this statement, we discuss 
possible sanctions and their ramifications, lay out principles that we 
believe should guide Internet sanctions, and propose a multistakeholder 
governance mechanism to facilitate decision-making and implementation.


Introduction

The Internet is in its thirtieth year of transition from national to 
multistakeholder governance. As we encounter pivotal moments, we must 
decide as a community whether Internet self-governance has matured 
sufficiently to address such newly encountered issue. Governments have 
imposed sanctions throughout history, but the global Internet governance 
community has not yet established a process dedicated to this task.


We believe it is now incumbent upon the Internet community to deliberate 
and make decisions in the face of humanitarian crises. We may not 
responsibly dismiss such crises without consideration, nor with 
consideration only for the self-interest of our community’s own direct 
constituents; instead, maturity of governance requires that self- 
interests be weighed in the balance with broader moral and societal 
considerations. This document is the beginning of a global Internet 
governance conversation about the appropriate scope of sanctions, the 
feasibility of sanctions within the realm of our collective 
responsibility, and our moral imperative to minimize detrimental 
consequences.


Principles for Internet Infrastructure Governance Sanctions

We, the undersigned, agree to the following principles:

   - Disconnecting the population of a country from the Internet is a 
disproportionate and inappropriate sanction, since it hampers their 
access to the very information that might lead them to withdraw support 
for acts of war and leaves them with access to only the information 
their own government chooses to furnish.


   - The effectiveness of sanctions should be evaluated relative to 
predefined goals. Ineffective sanctions waste effort and willpower and 
convey neither unity nor conviction.


   - Sanctions should be focused and precise. They should minimize the 
chance of unintended consequences or collateral damage. Disproportionate 
or over-broad sanctions risk fundamentally alienating populations.


   - Military and propaganda agencies and their information 
infrastructure are potential targets of sanctions.


   - The Internet, due to its transnational nature and consensus-driven 
multistakeholder system of governance, currently does not easily lend 
itself to the imposition of sanctions in national conflicts.


   - It is inappropriate and counterproductive for governments to 
attempt to compel Internet governance mechanisms to impose sanctions 
outside of the community’s multistakeholder decision-making process.


   - There are nonetheless appropriate, effective, and specific 
sanctions the Internet governance community may wish to consider in its 
deliberative processes.


Recommendations

We believe it is the responsibility of the global Internet governance 
community to weigh the costs and risks of sanctions against the moral 
imperatives that call us to 

Re: [ripe-list] Appeal of the European Network Engineers

[Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list]

It would be really nice if those of us who are active in a local or 
regional NOG would spread the word about this in their community. We 
need support from all parts of the region and especially from those 
suffering through the current war(s)!


Nobody should feel excluded by the 'Europe' in the title, read it as 
RIPE Region or as Rob Blokzijl coined it: 'Europe and surrounding 
areas'. We used 'Europe' to make it easier to understand for non-experts.


Daniel

PS: Of course I know that 'international tensions' is a gross euphemism 
for what is happening in parts of our region right now. It is painful to 
have to be so careful. However we especially need broad support from 
places where clearer language would put any supporter at disproportional 
risk.


Daniel

On 09-03-2022 22:18, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

Keep the Internet Open
==

Appeal of the European Network Engineers


We have worked hard to keep the Internet available in Europe and
surrounding areas during the Covid pandemic. The Internet infrastructure
is essential for the safety, security and well-being of all people
living here. Due to the growing international tensions in this part of
the world we hear calls to deliberately harm interconnections and the
functioning of the network. We realise that the Internet is being used
for purposes that many of us deplore. However this cannot be a reason to
harm the infrastructure itself and prevent the good and often essential
things that depend on it. We urge everyone to consider this carefully
and not only refrain from harming the operation and interconnection but
to actively work to keep the Internet running and maintain
interconnections with all parts of our region.

In particular we call on all governments and everyone involved with the
governance of the Internet to do everything they can to enable us to
keep the Internet infrastructure operational throughout the RIPE region.
We will do our part as well as we can.

     



The purpose of this appeal is to influence everyone considering actions
that would make it harder for us to keep the Internet running. In
particular it is intended to provide guidance and support to Internet
governance bodies like the RIPE NCC. It will only work if many
individuals sign up to it publicly. Individuals considered close to the
current conflicts will have special weight here!

You can sign this appeal by mailing a signature line of the form

     Name, Place, Countrycode

to .

Please add a very short statement why you consider yourself a network
engineer. Choose the place that best describes who you are; you do not
have to be there right now. We will only publish the signature line and
nothing else. We will delete your e-mail messages as soon as they are
processed.

Signatures will start to be published when we have collected at least
256 originating from throughout the region. We will start publicising
this appeal once we have at least 1024 signatures.

[Please spread the word.](https://keepitopen.net)

Thank you for your support!

Daniel Karrenberg, Roermond, NL


--

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your 
subscription options, please visit: 
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list

[ripe-list] Appeal of the European Network Engineers

[Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list]

Keep the Internet Open
==

Appeal of the European Network Engineers


We have worked hard to keep the Internet available in Europe and
surrounding areas during the Covid pandemic. The Internet infrastructure
is essential for the safety, security and well-being of all people
living here. Due to the growing international tensions in this part of
the world we hear calls to deliberately harm interconnections and the
functioning of the network. We realise that the Internet is being used
for purposes that many of us deplore. However this cannot be a reason to
harm the infrastructure itself and prevent the good and often essential
things that depend on it. We urge everyone to consider this carefully
and not only refrain from harming the operation and interconnection but
to actively work to keep the Internet running and maintain
interconnections with all parts of our region.

In particular we call on all governments and everyone involved with the
governance of the Internet to do everything they can to enable us to
keep the Internet infrastructure operational throughout the RIPE region.
We will do our part as well as we can.





The purpose of this appeal is to influence everyone considering actions
that would make it harder for us to keep the Internet running. In
particular it is intended to provide guidance and support to Internet
governance bodies like the RIPE NCC. It will only work if many
individuals sign up to it publicly. Individuals considered close to the
current conflicts will have special weight here!

You can sign this appeal by mailing a signature line of the form

Name, Place, Countrycode

to .

Please add a very short statement why you consider yourself a network
engineer. Choose the place that best describes who you are; you do not
have to be there right now. We will only publish the signature line and
nothing else. We will delete your e-mail messages as soon as they are
processed.

Signatures will start to be published when we have collected at least
256 originating from throughout the region. We will start publicising
this appeal once we have at least 1024 signatures.

[Please spread the word.](https://keepitopen.net)

Thank you for your support!

Daniel Karrenberg, Roermond, NL

--

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your 
subscription options, please visit: 
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list

Re: [ripe-list] New RIPE Code of Conduct

[Daniel Karrenberg]

This Code is focussed, readable and very, very clear. Kudos to the task 
force!

Can’t wait to see it published as a RIPE document.

I am confident the ‘future CoC team’ document will be of a similar 
quality.
Let’s not forget that we all have the responsibility to implement this 
Code and not that team.


Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] [Community-Discuss] Call for AFRINIC’s registry service migration to other RIRs

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 2 Aug 2021, at 20:45, Randy Bush wrote:


ignore the lies and escalation.  it is just designed to
create doubt and confusion.



Could not agree more. This guy quotes his very own comment on Rob 
Blokzijl’s obituary and puts his own words in the mouth of Rob who 
cannot do anything about it anymore. He even puts this ‘quote’ in 
the charter of his new anti-RIR club. Distasteful. A disgrace.


Just ignore the lies!

Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] 2020 NomCom Final Report

[Daniel Karrenberg]

The NomCom Final report is now also published a RIPE document:

https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-762

Personally I am eagerly looking forward to the general evaluation of 
this first run of a RIPE NomCom by the community. You can find the 
particular suggestions from the report below.


Daniel Karrenberg
Who burnt his proverbial NomCom Chair hat in the proverbial bonfire.

—

Recommendations to the RIPE Community

1. Document community consensus on the relationship between RIPE and the 
RIPE NCC; in particular consensus how RIPE NCC staff can participate in 
RIPE including nominations for RIPE Chair.


2. Document community consensus about remuneration of the RIPE Chairs. 
Consider documenting relevant procedures together with the RIPE NCC.


3. Consider changing ripe-728 to codify the use of a reserve list of 
volunteers in case voting members resign from the committee.


4. Consider clarifying the example time-lines in ripe-727 and ripe-728 
in the light of experience

Re: [ripe-list] NomCom Disbanded - No More Blog

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 26 May 2021, at 16:59, Joe Abley wrote:

I am a huge fan of the archive.org  crew's work, 
but I think there's also some value in the RIPE community managing its 
own historical record and not relying solely on the good work of 
others.



Colleagues,

RIPE traditionally maintains its history in RIPE documents, mailing list 
archives, meeting minutes and, more recently, recordings of meetings 
such as videos, presentation material and stenographic transcripts.


The NomCom proceedings are all recorded in these places as they 
happened. Everything is also comprehensively documented in our final 
report. This report can already be found in the archive of this list and 
will be published as a RIPE document soon. In my mind the blog was never 
intended to be permanent. It served the purpose of an *additional* 
channel to engage with the community. Do we really need to keep it given 
all the other material that is in the traditional places?


We can do that but it does not happen magically. It costs a non-trivial 
effort because the NomCom set up its infrastructure, including the blog, 
 separately from anything else in order to stress the independence of 
the NomCom and its process and in order to be able to delete all 
confidential and personal data once we were finished. I believe that 
without explicit permission from the people whose data the blog contains 
we should not just keep it for much longer than originally intended. 
While this may sound overly formal at first glance I consider it 
necessary. Obtaining this permission requires an effort, not a big one 
but it is not free.


Again, do we really need to keep this blog publicly accessible? I still 
have the data *of the blog only* because of the promise I made in the 
community plenary at RIPE 81. I would feel much better if I could delete 
this too.


Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] NomCom Disbanded - No More Blog

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Oh my! I apologise to everyone for copying this list on conversation 
with Randy I thought was private. As with any real screw up there are 
multiple causes: distraction, haste, sub-optimal UI on a mobile device 
and last but not least cognitive bias as I expected the private 
conversation I had requested in the original message. I’ll try to be 
more mindful the future.


Daniel

On 26 May 2021, at 17:54, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:


No. Freeware on own server. Docker container.


---
Sent from a handheld device.


On 26. May 2021, at 16:48, Randy Bush  wrote:




Ghost.org


a service, not freeware to be thrown on a vm


The other major issue is getting permission from all contributors.


yikes!

Re: [ripe-list] NomCom Disbanded - No More Blog

[Daniel Karrenberg]

No. Freeware on own server. Docker container. 


---
Sent from a handheld device.

> On 26. May 2021, at 16:48, Randy Bush  wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> Ghost.org
> 
> a service, not freeware to be thrown on a vm
> 
>> The other major issue is getting permission from all contributors.
> 
> yikes!
> 

Re: [ripe-list] NomCom Disbanded - No More Blog

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Ghost.org

Should have used wp but felt adventurous. The other major  issue is getting 
permission from all contributors. 


---
Sent from a handheld device.

> On 26. May 2021, at 15:50, Randy Bush  wrote:
> 
> hi daniel,
> 
> out of curiosity, what is the blogware that would need to be kept alive?
> 
> randy
> 

[ripe-list] Jonathan B. Postel Service Award - Nominations due 2 July

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Sehr verehrte Kollegen,

As many of you know the Internet Society makes a yearly award to ‘to 
an individual or organization that has made outstanding and sustained 
contributions in service to the Internet community’. ’The award is 
focused on sustained and substantial technical contributions, service to 
the community, and leadership. Concerning leadership, the nominating 
committee places particular emphasis on candidates who have supported 
and enabled others in their work.’


https://www.internetsociety.org/grants-and-awards/postel-service-award/

The most recent recipient of this honour from our region has been our 
former chairman Rob Blokzijl back in 2015. So maybe you can think of 
another worthy person to nominate?


Gruss,

Daniel

PS: On a similar but different note: We have our own RIPE award too and 
plan to present another one at the spring RIPE meeting next year. At the 
moment we are looking for volunteers for the award committee which will 
make the selection. 
https://rob-blokzijl-foundation.org/2021/05/11/2021-award-committee/ . 
We have some volunteers already. However, some younger people outside 
the group of long-timers would be very welcome. If you feel connected to 
RIPE at all, do not hesitate to come forward. There is no requirement 
for grey hair!


PPS: This is worthwhile and interesting work. I find it fascinating to 
learn about ’special’ people and their contributions.

[ripe-list] NomCom Disbanded - No More Blog

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Dear colleagues,

Just a short note that the 2020 NomCom is no longer. All data on our 
server has been securely deleted as have all back-ups, so we are sure 
any personal data is suitably randomised. In March we published a 
comprehensive report with a lot of reference material:


https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2021-March/002170.html

At RIPE81 some people including Rüdiger Volk requested that we keep the 
NomCom Blog available and I promised to do so. It turns out that doing 
that safely after turning off the original server is a lot more work 
than expected for a lot of different reasons. Therefore I hope that 
nobody really insists that we do that. In case you have suggestions on 
this or you feel the urge to volunteer for doing this work please 
contact me *privately*.


So long

Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] Updating the RIPE PDP Appeals Procedure

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 20 Apr 2021, at 14:48, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:

… Taking the conversation into account that Daniel Karrenberg 
initiated on

this list last week, …



Mirjam, fiends, colleagues,

I intended to start a discussion about the principles of how this 
community resolves conflicts leading to a document with the working 
title “The RIPE Way to Resolve Conflicts”. Talking to a number of 
you has convinced me that this is not the right moment due to all the 
other issues before the community right now including this Appeals 
Procedure.


I still suspect that within the next year or two we need to seek 
consensus about a document that describes our tradition of resolving 
conflicts, how we do and do not behave and a minimum of formal 
procedure. I will gladly add my thoughts once that discussion is started 
by one of you.


Let’s deal with current matters!

Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review

[Daniel Karrenberg]

That works forme. For the reasoning see my other message in this thread 
on the RIPE list.


Daniel

PS: In my reality the PC does not organise a meeting of its own and 
therefore has no role in determining things like which CoC applies. The 
PC has the responsibility for the program of *part of* the RIPE meeting 
which is organised by RIPE and chaired by our RIPE Chair.


On 19 Apr 2021, at 18:50, Niall O'Reilly wrote:


Perhaps the following text would suit:


The RIPE NCC regularly organizes events for communities which are
 distinct from RIPE. When preparing for such an event, the RIPE NCC
 will ascertain whether the respective community has adopted the
 RIPE Code of Conduct and, if not, also ascertain which Code must
 be applied.

Re: [ripe-list] Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Gergana, Randy,

Let’s take a step back and reflect a little. Here is my contribution:

In my reality RIPE and the RIPE NCC are *facilitating* meetings of local 
and regional communities.  We have always been very careful to respect 
the autonomy of the local communities as well as their values and 
customs. On the other hand we have some responsibilities depending on 
exactly how we facilitate; for instance we are often the host of the 
meetings. This is a fine line to walk.


As far as I can remember this started in Russia at a time when it was 
even more of an issue who actually *hosted* a meeting than it may be 
now. Back then we were able to make a difference by being a 
‘neutral’ external party who could invite everyone.


We should *offer* our codes, customs and material resources to *support* 
the local communities. We should never just assume they accept our codes 
as their own. They should have the option to adopt our codes or not as 
much as we have the option to walk away if we need to. We should not 
even think of this as being a hierarchy with RIPE at the top. Even with 
the best intentions this would be wrong.


Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] PDP Appeals Process

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 12 Apr 2021, at 22:14, Peter Koch wrote:


…  … This could be continued,


And it should in the context of the PDP review!


but I'll stop here to focus on Daniel's question.


That question remains: “Is it worth the effort to take a step back and 
describe how we deal with conflicts and their resolution within the RIPE 
community or is tweaking the PDP appeals procedure enough for now?”


Any answers? Suggestions?

Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] PDP Appeals Process

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Randy, colleagues,

we are already past the station where we wonder whether to review the 
appeals process. Our chairs collective is already actively thinking 
about significant tweaks. This is what prompted my reaction.


To make my point clearer let’s look at this from the perspective of 
cost to the community: The chairs are proposing costly tweaks to the 
existing procedure, such as writing and agreeing on a playbook and 
giving courses to WG chairs that may never use the PDP. I ask whether we 
should fundamentally review the procedure instead. That has a cost too. 
I expect this cost to be less or equal to the cost of the proposed 
tweaks. I also expect that we can come up with a good procedure that 
costs significantly less to *run* each time than a tweaked procedure. My 
message gives the general idea on how I propose to achieve that. This is 
the question we have to answer first.


The engineering comes after that. And, as always, the engineering will 
include trade-offs: the less costly the execution of the procedure is, 
the lower the threshold to invoke it can be and vice-versa.


Again: Should we go beyond tweaking and fundamentally review the PDP 
appeals procedure?


Daniel



On 10 Apr 2021, at 19:31, Randy Bush wrote:


Therefore I suggest to make more fundamental changes that do address
these shortcomings. Here are three generic suggestions:

1) There should be a higher threshold to make an appeal because
   appeals are costly to the community.

2) Appeals should be handled by a small number of people who commit 
to
   handling it properly within a defined time line because someone 
has

   to take responsibility.

3) Appeals should be fully and transparently documented from the 
first
   submission until the conclusion, because this is the RIPE 
standard.


how may appeals has ripe had?  how many appeals were upheld?  how much
sturm, drang, and omplaloskepsis are we willing suffer to tune it?

imiho, your point one is the toughie.  you want to require N 
signatures?


I have some implementation ideas already, similar but not identical 
to

the RIPE NCC arbitration procedure. However before I get to those I
would like to have some feedback on the general idea.


i fear we have to go through this.  if so, i respect and value your
start.

randy

---
ra...@psg.com
`gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd ra...@psg.com`
signatures are back, thanks to dmarc header butchery

[ripe-list] PDP Appeals Process

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Mirjam, Niall, WG Chairs,

Thank you for sharing your minutes about the Appeals Review and PDP 
Evolution. As far as PDP appeals are concerned I have the impression 
that the discussion is at the wrong level. We seem to be trying to tweak 
the procedure without fully recognising some significant shortcomings:


- Appeals require a large amount of community resources.
- The process involves too many people.
- The process involves people who have not consciously signed up for it, 
e.g. all WG chairs.
- The process involves significant number of people who feel they have 
to recuse themselves.

- Documentation and Openness of the process leave to be desired.

Trying to apply incremental improvements to the existing procedure will 
not solve these significant shortcomings.
Therefore I suggest to make more fundamental changes that do address 
these shortcomings. Here are three generic suggestions:


1) There should be a higher threshold to make an appeal because appeals 
are costly to the community.


2) Appeals should be handled by a small number of people who commit to 
handling it properly within a defined time line because someone has to 
take responsibility.


3) Appeals should be fully and transparently documented from the first 
submission until the conclusion, because this is the RIPE standard.


I have some implementation ideas already, similar but not identical to 
the RIPE NCC arbitration procedure. However before I get to those I 
would like to have some feedback on the general idea.


Best

Daniel
Full disclosure: RIPE Participant since RIPE 0 and NCC staff from the 
beginning.

[ripe-list] 'Ex Machina' Documents

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 9 Apr 2021, at 9:37, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:


Dear colleagues,

The RIPE Working Group Chairs met in March to discuss recommendations
for possible changes to the RIPE Policy Development Process. …


Mirjam,

Thank you for sharing this meeting summary.

I have looked at 
https://www.ripe.net/publications/draft-and-discussion-files/review-of-the-ripe-appeals-procedure 
.
This is another example of a bad habit we have gotten into. In Rob’s 
time the RIPE community has only discussed documents that said clearly


- Who had written the text,
- on Whose request,
- for What purpose, and
- When it had been written, released or published.

Referring to documents without this basic information and discussing 
them is a bad habit. It is easily perceived as not transparent. The 
‘’ information is also essential for understanding and 
discussing any text.


My advice to the community in general and the Chair in particular is to 
insist that all documents we discuss in the context of RIPE  have this 
information.


Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] [diversity] Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 29 Mar 2021, at 10:30, Leo Vegoda wrote:


…
I have been keeping track of the comments so the TF has a good idea of 
what

changes we need to make to the draft. I've tabulated them below and it
would be good if people could let me know if I have misunderstood what 
they

meant. …


This is an excellent way of making progress. I’ll emulate it in the 
future. Well done!


You have understood me correctly.

I support the suggestions of Eileen, Randy, Vesna, Sasha and Fearghas. 
In particular I support Vesna’s suggestion that you paraphrased as 
“call to action”.


Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] [diversity] Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 24 Mar 2021, at 17:21, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:

I don't know if this is the same in Netherlands, but in many 
countries, if you (either citizen or organization) know about a 
possible illegal action, you must report it, otherwise may be liable 
of covering-up an illegal activity. …


This is a myth.

In modern legal systems the obligation to report crimes is very, very 
limited. Typically one must only report crimes against human life and 
similarly severe crimes. Very often this obligation is also limited to 
the time when the crime can still be prevented. Often the obligation to 
report can be met by informing the potential victim instead of law 
enforcement.


More general obligations to report crimes are one of the hallmarks of 
totalitarian systems.


Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on TV. I am not 
familiar with every jurisdiction in this solar system. ;-)


Daniel

References:

NL: Artikel 160 Sv
DE: § 138 StGB

Re: [ripe-list] [diversity] Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Leo, TF people,

Thank you for coming up with a good and concise code. In particular I 
like the separation of ‘code’ from ‘enforcement’.

This is a good way forward!

Here are a few general suggestions. I will make some concrete text 
suggestions in a separate message soon.


1. I have the feeling that both applicability and behaviours can be 
described even more concisely: focus even more on the principles and 
separate them even more clearly from the long lists of examples. Call 
out the examples specifically as ‘examples’ illustrating the 
principles; do not write ’includes but is not limited’.


2. Heed Vesna’s suggestion to spell out expected behavior in the face 
of CoC violations in general terms. I understand that you want to 
separate ‘enforcement’ from the code, but doing this describing 
enforcement. As much as the code can speak to unacceptable behaviour it 
can speak about desired behavior … in general terms. I agree with 
Vesna that this is empowering and also demanding individual action, 
which is good.


3. Do not give the PC a special role. The whole paragraph is out of 
place and suddenly mentioning the RIPE NCC too. It almost looks like 
someone forgot to delete it from a previous version. Keep formal roles 
and ‘enforcement’ out of this as much as possible.


4. Do not speak about ‘national laws’, just about ‘laws’. Do not 
refer to ‘the authorities’ but rather to ‘law enforcement in the 
appropriate jurisdiction(s)’. There suddenly is mention of the CoC 
team out of the blue in that paragraph too. Another leftover?


5. If you feel that you have to mention roles and organisations in our 
community, do so in general terms. It may be worth mentioning that there 
will be different documents describing ‘support’, ’enforcement’ 
and ‘sanction’ roles with regard to the CoC and that multiple roles 
already exist complementing each other. Examples: RIPE Chairs, RIPE NCC, 
WG Chairs, PC, Trusted Contacts, … .


Again: Thank you all very much for the good work!

Daniel




On 4 Mar 2021, at 14:02, Leo Vegoda wrote:


Dear RIPE community,

An updated draft RIPE Code of Conduct (CoC) is now published for your
review. As this is intended to cover all participation within RIPE, it
applies to interactions over the Internet, mailing lists, as well as
in-person at RIPE Meetings.

You can find the document here:

https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-code-of-conduct/

This draft keeps most of the text in v3.0[1], which was developed by
the RIPE Diversity TF. It also draws from CoCs that are in use in
other communities, including the Python CoC[2]. The biggest change is
that the updated draft covers scope and behaviour only. It doesn’t
touch on process or the CoC Team – these aspects will be addressed 
in

two separate documents that are still to come.

Please review the draft and share any comments on the RIPE Discussion
List by Friday, 2 April 2021. We welcome suggested changes, but if you
don’t see problems with the draft then statements of support are 
also

helpful. The RIPE Chair Team will evaluate your comments and determine
whether there is consensus on this draft or additional work is needed.

While we would prefer comments to be shared on the RIPE Discussion
List, we recognise that some people might have feedback that they
would like to share in private. If you want to provide feedback in
private you can contact members of the CoC TF or the RIPE Chair Team
directly.

Some key changes in this version:

- The goal of “a neutral, transparent and open framework for report
handling” has been removed and will be covered in the upcoming
document that describes process.
- The scope is defined as “all participation in RIPE.”
- Groups and events with separate governance from RIPE may adopt this
CoC but will need to manage their own implementation.
- A new section covers how the CoC relates to national law.
- A new section lists desired behaviours along with an updated list of
unacceptable behaviours. - Both lists are arranged alphabetically, to
avoid suggesting a hierarchy.

We look forward to reading your thoughts on the current draft.

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda
On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF

[1] RIPE Meeting Code of Conduct 3.0 - Draft
https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-of-conduct-3-0-draft
[2] Python Community Code of Conduct 
https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/


___
diversity mailing list
divers...@ripe.net
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity

Re: [ripe-list] warning - next week will be nice week

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Thank you Randy!

We should definitely declare three weeks around a RIPE meeting to be 
‘RIPE Nice Weeks’.

Could we build consensus on that? In a nice way?

Daniel


On 17 Mar 2021, at 17:09, Randy Bush wrote:


ok folk.  get the snark and demanding privileged behavior out of your
(and my) system now because, in honor of the start of spring (in the
northern hemisphere) next week will be nice week.

we will remember to say thank you to folk who support us, such as 
other

list members, ncc staff, tool builders, and other infrastructure folk.

we will be helpful to others on list; and even show them how to use 
the

wonderful tools provided by the community and the ncc.

we will be welcoming to n00bs as they walk into walls as we did when 
we

were n00bs.

we will look for opportunities to give credit to others.

we will view that new spam as a serendipitous opportunity to better
train our bayesian filters.

we will encourage and be supportive of ripe/ncc staff if they try to
participate as if they were fellow humans who are part of the 
community;

because they actually are.  maybe hph will even let them come out and
play with us other children.

and we will keep our sense of humor at all times.

so get that bile out now, because we're gonna be nice next week.

randy

[ripe-list] RIPE Chairs Selected

[Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list]

Dear colleagues,

The RIPE 2020 NomCom has selected Mirjam Kühne as RIPE Chair and Niall 
O'Reilly as RIPE Vice Chair. After interviewing all nominees, hearing 
substantial input from the community and a thorough discussion during 
three selection meetings all voting members voted to select Mirjam as 
Chair and eight out of ten voting members voted to select Niall as Vice 
Chair. The selection was subsequently supported unanimously by all 
members of the committee. We closely followed the process spelled out in 
ripe-727 and ripe-728. We regularly paused to confirm that the whole 
committee was comfortable with the process and its progress.


We were able to choose from a set of nominees who are all very capable 
and well respected in the community. We expect that the community would 
support any of them as their Chair. Our selection is in no way a 
negative statement about the nominees we did not select.


We selected Mirjam because the input from the community clearly favoured 
her. She is very widely regarded as someone who listens carefully to 
everyone and who helps the community to find consensus and move forward. 
We selected Niall because of the positive input we received about his 
track record with the community. Mirjam and Niall convinced us that they 
would work well as a team and complement each other.


The RIPE NCC board has confirmed the candidates in accordance with the 
process set out in ripe-727. The original time line called for a 
transition from Hans Petter to Mirjam and Niall during RIPE 81 in 
October. Hans Petter has since resigned as RIPE Chair because he 
accepted to be the new managing director of the RIPE NCC; he is 
currently also serving as RIPE Chair ad-interim. In this situation it 
makes little sense to stick to the original time line. Therefore we 
suggest that the outgoing and incoming Chairs arrange the transition 
among themselves as soon as practicable.


We plan to publish the NomCom report about this first run of the 
selection process in September before our term ends at RIPE 81. We 
expect to make suggestions for improving the process and look forward to 
the community discussing and deciding the process for the next 
iteration.


We thank everyone who supported the NomCom, especially all nominees and 
the many members of the community who made time to give us their input.


Finally we call on the whole community to welcome and support Mirjam and 
Niall in their new roles!


Daniel Karrenberg - Chair - RIPE 2020 Nomcom

[ripe-list] NomCom has Started Candidate Selection

[Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list]

[See https://blog.ripe-nomcom.org/nomcom-starts-candidate-selection/ for 
a version of this message with convenient links.]


Before and during RIPE 80 there were calls for the NomCom to halt the 
process and calls to re-open the call for nominations. See the archives 
of the ripe-chair-discuss and ripe mailing lists.


The NomCom has listened carefully to these discussions and decided in 
its 5th meeting to postpone candidate selection and seek community 
support for continuing the process before proceeding. After further 
consultation within the NomCom I have published this request via this 
mailing list on 25 May.


The NomCom pondered the whole community discussion again in its 6th 
meeting and decided unanimously to continue with candidate selection at 
the next meeting.
Last Friday the NomCom has re-affirmed this decision at its 7th meeting 
and started with candidate selection.


The NomCom stresses that it has carefully addressed all suggestions made 
during the discussions and that it has not taken its decisions lightly 
or without regard to what has been said. We considered *all* input as 
well as the current circumstances and concluded that there is no 
consensus in the community to deviate pragmatically from the agreed 
process as it is codified in ripe-727 and ripe-728.


Now that we have made the decision according to our mandate and the 
process agreed by the community before, we ask the community to unite 
and support us in our effort.


Daniel Karrenberg
Chair
RIPE 2020 NomCom

Re: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support

[Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list]

On 26 May 2020, at 12:53, Alex de Joode wrote:

So I would like to see a statement from the nomcom if they perceive 
this to be a potential issue.


From the NomCom minutes, meeting of April 1st (no joke!)  Note that 
this is before all the input on ripe-chair-discuss.


“3.1 Conflicts Of Interest of Nominees

The committee considered discussions in the RIPE community about whether 
it was appropriate for individuals simultaneously to hold one of the 
RIPE chair roles and also be a RIPE NCC employee.


The context of those particular discussions was the announcement that 
Hans Petter Holen, the outgoing RIPE chair, had accepted employment at 
the RIPE NCC. The committee will also consider the same kinds of 
questions in the context of nominees who are currently RIPE NCC 
employees.


The committee agreed to treat this in the context of considering 
conflicts of interest of nominees in general and to defer this 
discussion until after meeting the nominees and hearing their declared 
conflicts and how they propose to address these.”


https://blog.ripe-nomcom.org/2nd-meeting-of-the-ripe-2020-nomcom/

So yes we are aware of the potential ‘issue’.

We are also aware of the input to us. We have responded to it when it 
happened and we will take it into account in our further work.


The RIPE NCC board has told us that they are also aware and that they 
will be seeking solutions according to their mandate and community 
input. As far as I can see the RIPE NCC board is doing everything they 
can to avoid having influence on the RIPE Chair selection process beyond 
playing their role in the agreed process.


As to your other questions: The NomCom has agreed to not get ahead of 
itself and solutioneer ad lib, possibly in areas outside our mandate. We 
will first concentrate on our mandate to find the best people for the 
roles according to the agreed process. We will tackle the unforeseen 
related issues second and only insofar as we have a mandate for it. We 
may decide to provide suggestions to those with a mandate such as the 
RIPE NCC board and the community at large after that. And finally we 
will make a report that the community can use to review the process.


Daniel
NomCom Chair

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE80, RIPE81

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Gordon,

Thank you for starting this.

The virtual meeting was extremely well organised. It could hardly have 
been better. But it is far from the same as meeting in person. I miss 
the applause. I miss the non-verbal interaction. I miss the meetings in 
the hallways and in the bar. Some discussions during this meeting were 
less than optimal due to the lack the moderation of such venues and the 
opportunity to really look each other in the face while discussing. 
Really meeting each other is a big part of keeping community spirit and 
coherence.


I have learnt much much less than I usually do during meetings. Do not 
get me started about how physical distance makes the work of the NomCom 
more difficult. We need regular physical meetings for a plethora of 
reasons.


So we should be careful with steps that give the bean counters 
opportunities to create facts for us.


Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Database Requirements Task Force BoF

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Shane, TFers,

Thanks for holding the BoF and for sharing this.

To repeat and expand on my input at the BoF.

1.) I am missing language about evolution of the requirements and the 
database itself. A high level stock taking exercise like this one that 
aims to be the basis for a service has to make it explicit that it 
addresses just about one point in time and things *will* change. It 
makes sense to spend a few paragraphs on how this will be handled.


2a.) -- ‘Provide registration information of Internet number 
resources’ is a primary purpose. I would use a title like 
“Authoritative and Accurate Registry of Internet Number Resources’. 
As far as I can see it ‘Enabling transfer of IP resources’ should be 
part of that.


2b.) I suggest grouping a number of the other separate items under 
‘Facilitate Internet Operations and Operational Coordination’:

- Facilitating communication about usage of the resources
- Publishing routing policies by network operators (RIPE IRR)
- Reverse Domain Name System (rDNS)
- The RPKI Database
It is important that we emphasise the RIPE DB is not just a registry but 
an operational tool.


3.) This iteration seems too detailed for me already. The charter is 
‘… The purpose of the document is to establish community consensus 
at the general level. …’.
I think it would make sense for the TF to take a step back and look for 
the general themes behind the detailed issues. And to look at it from 
the point of view of the users, first and foremost the primary users, 
those who register information in the database and use it for 
operational purposes.


Thank you again for working on this. If it was easy it would just 
happen.


Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Database Requirements Task Force BoF

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 6 May 2020, at 13:53, Randy Bush wrote:


i was not even shown a recaptcha, let alone narrow sidewalks which
make one nervous in times of plague separation.  my browser is a
bit conservative.


If your browser blocks the captcha you must be a bot. ;-)

Daniel

PS: Sorry for spamming the list. This started as a private rant between 
like-minded greybeards and I did not notice it escaped. :-(

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Database Requirements Task Force BoF

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 6 May 2020, at 13:47, Randy Bush wrote:


oh goodie.  and then i get "Recaptcha error, Please try again."

randy


At least you can recognise US sidewalks. Some people from many places 
have trouble with that. … ;-)

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Database Requirements Task Force BoF

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 6 May 2020, at 12:26, Shane Kerr wrote:

https://ripe.zoom.us/meeting/register/tJMkd-yhrz4uHNDuOIBm8hGvcj8DSDK1Ybog

Shane,

Thank you for the invitation. I cannot find any information why I have 
to provide registration information, who will hold that information and 
what the privacy rules for this information are. Can you enlighten me 
there?


Daniel

[ripe-list] More News from the NomCom

[Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list]

[ For a version of this message with embedded links and for nominee 
statements, see https://blog.ripe-nomcom.org/ ]



The RIPE 2020 NomCom will select two persons for the roles of RIPE Chair 
and RIPE Vice Chair. We have four nominees who are well known to the 
community:


Filiz Yilmaz, Niall O'Reilly, Nigel Titley and Mirjam Kühne.

We have held our second meeting and  worked out the plans for collecting 
input from the community. Here is a quick outlook about what the NomCom 
will do between now and the RIPE meeting, during the meeting and after.


Before RIPE 80

During the coming two weeks the NomCom will have conversations with the 
nominees and prepare for the RIPE meeting. We want to hear input from 
the community at between now and the end of the RIPE meeting. This is 
your chance to influence our selection. The best way to reach the whole 
committee is by e-mail. If you prefer you can also contact individual 
members of the NomCom. Of course we will treat all input confidentially. 
To that end we have even set up a dedicated server, so that we can erase 
the electronic traces of our work as well as possible once we are done.


During RIPE 80

We will participate in the RIPE 80 meeting and give a short report 
during the community plenary session on Thursday afternoon. On the 
Friday of the meeting week the NomCom will hold virtual 'office hours' 
for those who prefer to give input in a meeting and those for whom 
writing us is simply not enough. Individual meeting slots will be 
allocated first-come first served. Contact support at ripe-nomcom.org 
for an appointment.


After RIPE 80

Hans Petter Holen has announced that he will resign at the end of April 
before he takes up his new role as RIPE NCC Managing Director. Waiting 
until RIPE 81 to transition to the newly selected Chairs, as planned, no 
longer makes much sense now.  Therefore making the selection has become 
somewhat more urgent. We are committed
to work more quickly than planned but not to become too hasty either. 
Together with the RIPE NCC Executive Board we aim for selection in early 
June and confirmation by the board soon after.


We will regularly report on our progress on this mailing list and the 
NomCom blog.



Daniel Karrenberg
Chair
RIPE 2020 NomCom

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Chair transition

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Sorry, something went horribly wrong there with cut-and-paste. This is 
the message I intended to send:



On 6 Apr 2020, at 20:18, Warren Kumari wrote:

I've read this (and the minutes) a number of times, and am still
unable to parse -- it sounds the summary is: "Hans Petter will
transition from Chair to ad interim Chair until there is a new chair"
-- is that correct? …

Yes!

Hans Petter says:

“…I have informed the Working Group Chairs collective that I will 
resign as RIPE Chair as of 30 April.”


The WG Chairs say:

“Therefore, we have asked Hans Petter, and he has agreed, to take the 
role of RIPE Chair ad interim after his resignation  …”


Hans Petter will resign on April 30th.  After that he will serve as RIPE 
Chair Ad Interim.


“… and to help with a speedier-than-foreseen transition once the 
selection process for a new Chair and Vice Chair concludes."


After the NomCom process concludes the confirmed candidates will take 
their roles as Chair and Vice Chair as soon as possible. We will not 
wait for the autumn meeting as per the planned process.


Clear now?

May sound overly formalistic for RIPE. But we better follow the 
formalism we have imposed on ourselves, Right?



Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Chair transition

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 6 Apr 2020, at 20:18, Warren Kumari wrote:


Hi there,

I've read this (and the minutes) a number of times, and am still
unable to parse -- it sounds the summary is: "Hans Petter will
transition from Chair to ad interim Chair until there is a new chair"
-- is that correct?

Note that I think that this is a *perfectly* fine outcome[0], I'm just
trying to parse / understand...

W
[0]: ... and thanks for being concerned about the CoI, and for being
willing to serve / your service...

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:55 PM Hans Petter Holen  
wrote:



I am starting as Managing Director of the RIPE NCC at 1. May 2020. I 
have already informed the NomCom that I have withdrawn my nomination 
for the role of RIPE Chair, but this still puts me in a situation 
where I hold both the positions as RIPE NCC MD and as RIPE Chair 
until the NomCom has made its appointment. Serving both positions may 
be seen as a conflict of interest.



To resolve this I have informed the Working Group Chairs collective 
that I will resign as RIPE Chair as of 30 April.



When the RIPE Chairs resigns, then according to RIPE 727 the working 
group chairs will have to appoint a “chair ad interim”  to serve 
until the NomCom has selected a permanent chair and the RIPE NCC 
Executive Board has confirmed the selection.



See: the “Continuity” section in RIPE 727 
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-727



The NomCom expects to have confirmed candidates in July. It is 
reasonable to expect that the confirmed candidates would be able and 
willing to assume their roles well before RIPE 81.



The matter was discussed on the wg-chair list and in a call on 30 
March 2020 made the following decision:



"The WG chairs have taken notice of Hans Petter’s intention to step 
down as RIPE Chair; we respect the reasons behind it. The NomCom 
process is already under way and the NomCom expects to have confirmed 
candidates by the end of July. Therefore, we have asked Hans Petter, 
and he has agreed, to take the role of RIPE Chair ad interim after 
his resignation and to help with a speedier-than-foreseen transition 
once the selection process for a new Chair and Vice Chair concludes."



https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/cc/summaries/minutes-of-second-remote-ripe-80-planning-call


Hans Petter Holen

RIPE Chair




--
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

[ripe-list] News from the NomCom

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Dear colleagues,

RIPE 80 is going online and Hans Petter is no longer available.

Here is how it will affect the NomCom plans:

RIPE 80 going online will make it more difficult to gather community 
input to the NomCom process. We considered taking more time to make up 
for this. However, as Hans Petter has told us he is no longer available 
for selection, we will stick to the agreed timeline and aim to have the 
new Chair and Vice Chair selected by 15 June.


We are also considering to speed up the transition period. Rather than 
waiting until RIPE 81 we aim to have the confirmed candidates assume 
their roles as soon as feasible. The intention is to minimize the period 
during which Hans Petter has to serve in the role of RIPE Chair in 
addition to his new role as Managing Director of the RIPE NCC.


The NomCom will actively participate in the online version of RIPE 80 
and we will do our best to collect as much community input as we 
possibly can. We will be there at  the online community plenary and we 
will have online office hours. We aim to select excellent candidates for 
the Chair and Vice Chair roles and follow an exemplary process. As of 
now, we have three brilliant nominees. Nominations are open until 29 
March 2020!


You can find more on the NomCom blog [https://blog.ripe-nomcom.org/].

Stay safe and healthy

Daniel Karrenberg
Chair
RIPE NomCom 2020

[ripe-list] RIPE NomCom News

[Daniel Karrenberg]

The RIPE NomCom has held its first meeting, received four nominations so 
far and has established a blog to keep the community informed about its 
progress.


The blog can be found at https://blog.ripe-nomcom.org/ .

The four nominees received so far are Filiz Yilmaz, Hans Petter Holen, 
Nigel Titley and Mirjam Kühne.


The NomCom would like to receive further nominations by March 29th 2020 
23:59 UTC.


If you feel this is too terse, look at the blog.

Washing hands again … ;-)

Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE80 and COVID-19

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Personally I would also like to know more and sooner. That does not make it so 
in a fluid situation such as this. 

To repeat my point: the channel is open! I am sure that as soon as there is 
something useful to say we will all hear about it here, including timetables 
etc.  In the meantime let’s keep the noise down. 

Washing hands ...

Daniel


---
Sent from a handheld device.




---
Sent from a handheld device.
> On 2. Mar 2020, at 22:34, Gordon Lennox  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 2 Mar 2020, at 21:00, Daniel Karrenberg  wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2 Mar 2020, at 19:39, Jim Reid wrote:
>>> 
>>> … Current WHO advice is for meeting organisers to consult with the local 
>>> public health authorities and carry
>>> out a proper risk assessment. …
>> 
>> Before this gets to be a huge thread:
> 
> I see that ICANN-67 is now remote participation only.
> 
>> I know first hand that the RIPE NCC and the RIPE Chair are in the process of 
>> updating the risk assessment for RIPE80 and evaluating options.
> 
> Lucky you. But maybe the community could now also participate in the 
> conversation?
> 
>> As usual: should current plans change you will hear it here first.
> 
> I would very much like that. So far all I have seen is a page on the 
> web-site. On the list would have been better. 
> 
> So without going crazy, I would appreciate this channel being kept active.
> 
>> Please return to more appropriate fora to discuss generalities. We can 
>> discuss again when/if alternatives to the current plan emerge.
>> 
>> Daniel
> 
> I accept it is too early to make firm GO / NO-GO decisions. But France has 
> already banned gatherings of over 5000 people. And while we are nowhere near 
> that we are a delightfully international community. So we present a higher 
> risk?
> 
> I think we need some indication, even a rough indication, of a possible 
> decision timetable as soon as possible. Perhaps 35 days before? Unless the 
> local authorities do something in the interim. People can then consider 
> adjusting their own plans.
> 
> And please wash your hands!
> 
> Gordon
> 
> 
> 

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE80 and COVID-19

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 2 Mar 2020, at 19:39, Jim Reid wrote:

… Current WHO advice is for meeting organisers to consult with the 
local public health authorities and carry

out a proper risk assessment. …


Before this gets to be a huge thread:

I know first hand that the RIPE NCC and the RIPE Chair are in the 
process of updating the risk assessment for RIPE80 and evaluating 
options. As usual: should current plans change you will hear it here 
first. Please return to more appropriate fora to discuss generalities. 
We can discuss again when/if alternatives to the current plan emerge.


Daniel

[ripe-list] RIPE NomCom Formed

[Daniel Karrenberg]

The RIPE NomCom has now been formed and starts its work.


NameMailboxComment
-

Voting Members

Arnold Nipper   arnold.nipper
Benno Overeinderbenno
Dmitry Burkov   dvburk
Dmitry Kohmanyukdk
Gert Döring gert
Joe Abley   jabley
Ondřej Caletka  ondrej.caletka
Robert EvansRob.Evans   also a liaison
Sander Steffann sander
Tina Morris Tinam

Advisors

Anna Wilson anna.wilson 'previous NomCom chair’
Daniel Karrenberg   chair

Liaisons

Jan Žoržjan Programme Committee
Piotr Strzyżewski   Piotr.Strzyzewski   RIPE NCC Board
Robert EvansRob.Evans   RIPE WG Chairs

Support

Daniella Coutinho   support clerical support role


The 10 voting members will select the next RIPE Chair with support from 
the advisors and liaisons. Anna Wilson has agreed to fill the role of 
‘previous NomCom chair’ in this very first RIPE NomCom.


Committee members can receive NomCom related mail at their respective 
mailboxes at ripe-nomcom.org. The whole committee can be reached at the 
‘nomcom’ mailbox.


We will keep the community updated on our progress.


Daniel Karrenberg
Chair
RIPE 2020 Nominations Committee

[ripe-list] New Deadline for RIPE Chair Nominations

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Good morning,

at the end of the previous RIPE Meeting I made a call for you to 
nominate persons for RIPE Chair and Vice Chair. The deadline was 
yesterday and we have received a total of 2 (two) nominations, one for 
chair and one for vice chair. While this would make the task of the 
committee an easy one ;-), it has also been brought to my attention that 
the call was not very widely known. Many people seem to have missed it 
in all the excitement of the Rotterdam meeting. Even the current RIPE 
chair, Hans Petter, missed it.


While working on the time-line for the NomCom I also realised that there 
is no reason to set such a short deadline. ripe-728 does not prescribe 
this either. ripe-728 also calls for pragmatism in a situation like 
this. Therefore I now set a new deadline: March 29th 23:59 UTC. This 
will also allow for the NomCom itself to canvass for Nominations. In the 
meantime I will work to give this call some more publicity.


Daniel Karrenberg
Chair of the 2019-2020 RIPE NomCom


Forwarded message:


From: Daniel Karrenberg 
To: RIPE List 
Subject: Who will be the next RIPE Chair  and Vice Chair ?
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:01:51 +0200

Dear RIPE participants,

Next year, a nominations committee (NomCom) will select two people to 
fill the positions of RIPE Chair and Vice Chair, with help from the 
wider community. As chair of the 2019-2020 RIPE NomCom, I invite you 
to nominate candidates for these positions.


As members of the RIPE community, you will have some idea of what the 
RIPE Chair is responsible for and what kind of person you would like 
to see in this role - and  the revived Vice Chair role. Please think 
about suitable candidates, talk with them, discuss this with your 
peers, and nominate people who will have the support of the community.


You may nominate any member of the RIPE community for either position. 
Self-nominations are also permitted. NomCom members are not eligible 
to be considered.


You might also consider volunteering for the NomCom. I have made a 
separate call for this, which you can find on the ripe mailing list.


Send your nominations to  and include a 
description of the skills or expertise that make your candidate a 
desirable choice. Please also include a working email address or 
telephone number for the nominee and indicate whether they are aware 
of your nomination.


The Nomcom will also be interested in your opinion about the 
performance of the incumbent, Hans Petter Holen.


The deadline for all nominations is Sunday, 15 December 2019.

You can find more information in the relevant RIPE Documents:

ripe-714: A brief description of the RIPE Chair’s role.
ripe-727: Information about the selection process.
ripe-728: Detailed information about the NomCom

I am happy to answer any further questions you may have.

Daniel Karrenberg
Chair of the 2019-2020 RIPE NomCom

Re: [ripe-list] NomCom Volunteers and Selection

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Farzaneh,

Welcome! Thank you for your thoughtful contribution. It is more than 
appropriate and I appreciate it. With your permission I will include 
your thoughts in the draft of the NomCom final report. The main purposes 
of that report are to identify areas for improvement, to make 
suggestions for changes and to serve as a guide for the next NomCom.


As Randy suggested it would be excellent if serious research was done on 
the questions you list. I intend to either perform or instigate some 
research in this direction when I find the time and before the final 
report is completed. Of course it would be better to do it sooner as 
people’s memories tend to fade. Unfortunately I have no time to spare 
for this right now. So, personally, I welcome initiatives in this 
direction.


Best

Daniel

PS: I have the impression that you misunderstood Randy’s directness as 
lack of politeness or bad form. I interpreted it as a constructive 
suggestion. We all have to be aware that such different interpretations 
can happen in a community as divers as RIPE, however hard we try to 
avoid them.


Daniel


On 14 Dec 2019, at 16:58, farzaneh badii wrote:


Daniel,

I think Sasha's point is important. You have a valid argument that few
applied despite your outreach and effort. However, is it possible 
within
the current procedures to find out the reasons they didn't apply? Did 
they
get the communications? Do they not have enough resources and time to 
take
part? Do they know and understand the importance of the role? And so 
on.
If  we can find out the reasons they didn't apply and if the issues 
they

mention can be solved with some preparation (not impractical solutions
though!), then you can prepare for the next Nomcom with additional
insights.

Just a thought. This is my first email to this list, I have no idea 
who has

posting rights, so apologies if I am jumping in undeservedly.

Farzaneh

Re: [ripe-list] NomCom Volunteers and Selection

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Hi Ole,

Good to hear from you again!

The RIPE NomCom process is described in ’The RIPE Chair Selection 
Process’ (ripe-727) and ‘The RIPE Nominating Committee’ 
(ripe-728). ripe-728 is a close copy of RFC7437 which describes the IETF 
NomCom process.

Both RFC7437 and ripe-728 have this to say:

“Any committee member may propose the addition of an advisor to 
participate in some or all of the deliberations of the committee. The 
addition must be approved by the committee according to its established 
voting mechanism. Advisors participate as individuals.”


This is what I was referring to in my message.

Personally I see this provision as an opportunity for the NoCom to 
closely involve people who make a commitment to help the NomCom to 
function better. In particular the NomCom could decide to use this 
mechanism to improve its diversity.


Of course I do not propose to invite everyone who claims to 
‘represent’ a subset of the community that they claim is 
‘excluded’. The NomCom is not a parliament! I just intended to point 
out that this mechanism already exists and is available to the NomCom.


As NomCom chair I intend to point this out at the first meeting 
referring to this and other pertinent  discussions.


I hope this clarifies things.

Daniel



On 13 Dec 2019, at 18:59, Ole Jacobsen wrote:


Hi Daniel,

For the IETF nomcom, there are only 2 Advisors:

* Past chair
* IETF Tools Team Advisor

The Tools Team Advisor is mainly there to provide support for
the process (candidate feedback, encrypted committee deliberations
and so on).

The rest are Liaisons:

IAB Liaison
IESG Liaison
ISOC Board Liaison
IETF LLC Liaison
IETF Trust Liaison


I am not sure I understand how Advisors are selected in the RIPE
context: "An advisor is responsible for such duties as specified by
the invitation that resulted in the appointment."

Can you clarify what this means in practice.

Ole

Re: [ripe-list] NomCom Volunteers and Selection

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 12 Dec 2019, at 12:21, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

Working within the current procedure, if you wish and the NomCom 
agrees, you could become an advisor to the NomCom, both for the 
purpose of bringing more diversity and for helping with that final 
report. How’s that?


To be sure: as laid out in ripe-728 advisors are full members of the 
NomCom, participate, contribute and vote on all matters except on the 
selection of candidates.


From my observations of IETF NomComs I can say that advisors can have 
considerable influence on the work of the NomCom and the outcomes of 
that work.


The NomCom will have liaisons from the WG-chairs collective, the RIPE 
program committee and the RIPE NCC board. Ana Wilson has agreed to be an 
advisor filling the role of ‘previous chair’.


If anyone in the RIPE community has suggestions for additional advisors 
that would help the NomCom please let us hear them.


Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] NomCom Volunteers and Selection

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 12 Dec 2019, at 11:28, Sasha Romijn wrote:


Hello Daniel,
Of course it could have been more diverse if more people had offered 
to serve…


I find this a rather strange comment. This sounds like a way of 
placing the responsibility for diversity in the NomCom, onto people 
from underrepresented groups in our community. This is a sentiment 
that I have seen before regarding the NomCom, from different people.


Instead of placing that responsibility on those underrepresented 
groups, I wonder what work was done in advance to identify possible 
biases in the qualification process, what barriers may reduce 
diversity in the NomCom, and how these biases and barriers were 
accounted for in the policy?


I’m aware it’s a bit late to change the policy. However, it is 
similarly a bit late to raise concerns about diversity only after the 
policy and call for volunteers is announced, and then the call does 
not result in a diverse group. Especially if the limited diversity is 
then explained as “if only more people had offered to serve”.


Sasha



Sasha,

it is a very straightforward comment. My best estimate of the number of 
eligible people is 380. As NomCom chair I made announcements, talked at 
the community plenary and I canvassed. We made a lot of noise with the 
help of the excellent NCC comms people. Quite a number of other people 
helped with all that too. My hope was for roughly 25% of those eligible 
volunteering. In the end less than 10% did. I had hoped for more 
volunteers and for a more diverse set of volunteers; hence my comment. 
It was certainly not my intention to blame anyone for anything, nor was 
it my intention to raise concerns.


As you know the discussion about the process took several years. I am 
happy it concluded eventually. A number of people worked quite hard to 
make that happen. This process was as open, transparent and inclusive as 
possible. The issue of NomCom eligibility was discussed several times. 
Yet no-one made workable suggestions in that particular area when the 
proposal was on the table for several months. In the end my perception 
of the sentiment was “This is good enough for the first round. We’ll 
be pragmatic if we hit snags and we will improve it for the next 
round.” After this first run is complete, the NomCom will produce a 
report listing issues and hopefully presenting alternatives to address 
those.


Working within the current procedure, if you wish and the NomCom agrees, 
you could become an advisor to the NomCom, both for the purpose of 
bringing more diversity and for helping with that final report. How’s 
that?


Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] NomCom Volunteers and Selection

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Good morning,

The lotteries have produced randomness and I have run the RFC3797 
algorithm. Thus the following 10 volunteers are selected to serve as 
voting members of the NomCom. They will choose the next RIPE chair and 
vice chair.


|Selection # | ID |Name | Affiliation
|

|:--:||-||
| 01 | 19 |Dmitry Burkov|RU-CENTER   
|
| 02 | 15 |Joe Abley|Public Interest Registry
|
| 03 | 25 |Dmitry Kohmanyuk |Hostmaster.UA   
|
| 04 | 08 |Gert Döring  |SpaceNet AG
 |
| 05 | 11 |Ondřej Caletka   |CESNET 
 |
| 06 | 30 |Tina Morris  |Amazon  
|
| 07 | 02 |Sander Steffann  |Global NOG Alliance 
|
| 08 | 21 |Benno Overeinder |NLnet Labs  
|
| 09 | 03 |Robert Evans |Jisc
|
| 10 | 10 |Arnold Nipper|DE-CIX Management GmbH  
|



This is a fine selection of very capable people who are well rooted in 
our community. It is about as good as I personally hoped for. Of course 
it could have been more diverse if more people had offered to serve…


The following 6 volunteers are the ‘reserve’ and will be called upon 
in this order if necessary:


|Selection # | ID |Name | Affiliation
|

|:--:||-||
| 11 | 05 |Stefan Wahl  |Megaport / ECIX 
|
| 12 | 16 |Marcus Stoegbauer|Megaport / ECIX 
|
| 13 | 17 |Mircea Ulinic|DigitalOcean
|
| 14 | 36 |João luis silva damas|APNIC  
 |
| 15 | 32 |Nathalie Trenaman|RIPE NCC
|
| 16 | 09 |Hervé Clément|Orange SA 
  |


All 16 volunteers meet the selection criteria; thanks to Alexandra Vos 
of the meeting secretariat for double checking this. Also no more than 
two of these people have the same affiliation. Thus all 16 meet the 
criteria for serving on the NomCom. According to ripe-728 there is a 7 
day challenge period starting now. After this period the selections 
become definite.


In the name of the community I thank all 36 volunteers for offering to 
serve. The NomCom will have its first meeting in the second half of 
January. As a chair I plan to conduct this process as openly as possible 
and to proactively inform the community about what is going on. This may 
cause a little traffic on this list ;-). Let us support the NomCom 
during this process by providing as much well considered input as we 
can.


We have received a total of 1 (one) nominations so far. Apparently the 
call for nominations came too soon after the call for NomCom volunteers 
and went unnoticed by many. Thus I intend to extend the deadline for 
this well into next year. Stay tuned for that announcement.


Daniel Karrenberg
Chair of the RIPE Nominations Committee



—


 Selection Process Details:

The list of volunteers as published on 2 December was:

| ID |Name | Affiliation
|

||-||
| 20 |Alexander Isavnin|Internet Protection Society 
|
| 13 |Andreas Wkittkemper  |Verizon Deutschland GmbH
|
| 24 |Antonio Prado|SBTAP   
|
| 10 |Arnold Nipper|DE-CIX Management GmbH  
|
| 21 |Benno Overeinder |NLnet Labs  
|
| 23 |Brian Nisbet |HEAnet  
|
| 31 |Cosmin Octavian Lupu |Visma   
|
| 19 |Dmitry Burkov|RU-CENTER   
|
| 25 |Dmitry Kohmanyuk |Hostmaster.UA   
|
| 27 |Frederic Jaeckel |GitHub, Inc.
|
| 07 |Geoff Huston |APNIC   
|
| 08 |Gert Döring  |SpaceNet AG 
|
| 09 |Hervé Clément|Orange SA  
 |
| 14 |Jim Reid |RTFM llp
|
| 15 |Joe Abley|Public Interest Registry
|
| 36 |João luis silva damas|APNIC   
|
| 28 |Keith Mitchell   |DNS-OARC
|
| 16

[ripe-list] NomCom Volunteers and Selection

[Daniel Karrenberg]

By the deadline these 36 people have volunteered for the RIPE 
Nominations Committee:


20 Alexander Isavnin Internet Protection Society
13 Andreas Wkittkemper   Verizon Deutschland GmbH
24 Antonio Prado SBTAP
10 Arnold Nipper DE-CIX Management GmbH
21 Benno Overeinder  NLnet Labs
23 Brian Nisbet  HEAnet
31 Cosmin Octavian Lupu  Visma
19 Dmitry Burkov RU-CENTER
25 Dmitry Kohmanyuk  Hostmaster.UA
27 Frederic Jaeckel  GitHub, Inc.
07 Geoff Huston  APNIC
08 Gert Döring   SpaceNet AG
09 Hervé Clément Orange SA
14 Jim Reid  RTFM llp
15 Joe Abley Public Interest Registry
36 João luis silva damas APNIC
28 Keith MitchellDNS-OARC
16 Marcus Stoegbauer Megaport / ECIX
29 Markus de BrünBSI
04 Martin Winter Network Device Education Foundation (Net
26 Massimo Candela   NTT
17 Mircea Ulinic DigitalOcean
32 Nathalie Trenaman RIPE NCC
33 Nurani NimpunoAsteroid International
11 Ondřej CaletkaCESNET
18 Pascal Gloor  Quickline AG
12 Paul Hoogsteder   Meanie
06 Randy BushArrcus Inc & IIJ & RGnet
03 Robert Evans  Jisc
02 Sander Steffann   Global NOG Alliance
35 Shane KerrNS1
34 Simone Ferlin Ericsson
05 Stefan Wahl   Megaport / ECIX
30 Tina Morris   Amazon
01 Wolfgang Tremmel  DE-CIX Management GmbH
22 Wolfgang Zenker   punkt.de GmbH


This is about 10% of our estimate for the number of eligible persons. In 
the name of the RIPE community I thank all these people for 
volunteering. For 35 of them we have verified that they have attended at 
least three out of the five most recent RIPE meetings.


The ten voting members of the NomCom will be selected by the method 
specified in RFC3797 based on the numbers in the list above and on the 
following lotto results of Wednesday, December 11th:


Deutscher Lottoblock [https://www.lotto.de/lotto-6aus49/lottozahlen]
Swisslotto 
[https://www.swisslos.ch/de/swisslotto/information/gewinnzahlen/gewinnzahlen-quoten.html]

Österreichische Lotterien [https://www.win2day.at/lotterie/lotto]

In the event this method will select a person whose eligibility is not 
yet confirmed or a person who does not re-confirm their willingness to 
serve, the next person in the sequence will be selected and so forth.


Daniel Karrenberg
Chair of the RIPE Nominations Committee


PS: In an earlier statement I said that I would use the Luxembourg 
Lotto. During a trial run today however it became obvious that they are 
very pragmatic and use the numbers of the German lotto. ;-) In order to 
have ample entropy I chose to use the Austrian lotto instead.

[ripe-list] RIPE NomCom Deadline Extended

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Dear colleagues,

We have received 30 volunteers for the RIPE NomCom so far. This is a
great start, but I believe we can do better. Therefore, after consulting
with the RIPE Chair and the RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman, I am
extending the deadline for volunteering by two weeks, until

Sunday, 1 December 2019 .

The NomCom plays an essential role in the self-governance of our
community by selecting the RIPE Chair and Vice Chair. As such, it is
important that the NomCom members are selected from a diverse pool of
initial volunteers. As this is a new process, we also need to ensure
that everyone is aware of what the NomCom does and how its members are
randomly selected.

We have had excellent leadership from both Rob and Hans Petter to date,
but RIPE cannot rely on good fortune to ensure this remains the case.
If you consider yourself a member of this community, please support
the process - either by volunteering yourself or encouraging others to
step forward as potential NomCom members.

For details see the message below.

Daniel Karrenberg
Chair of the 2019-2020 RIPE NomCom

——


Dear RIPE Participant,

RIPE will choose its next chair and a vice chair by way of a nominations 
committee. Ten volunteers, randomly selected from the community, will 
make that choice with the help of the whole community. These ten people 
plus a number of non-voting liaisons and advisors will form the NomCom. 
The NomCom will start to work around January 2020 and make its selection 
soon after the next RIPE meeting in May of that year. The job of the 
NomCom is to select people who have what it takes and also have the 
support of the community.


As chair of the 2019-2020 Nomcom, my job is to organise the work and 
help the volunteers with making their choice. Therefore I call on you to 
volunteer. Ideally we are looking for about 100 volunteers representing 
a broad range of RIPE participants. Ten of those people will be randomly 
selected to serve on the NomCom. To qualify for serving as a voting 
volunteer you have to have attended three of the five most recent RIPE 
meetings up to the meeting taking place this week in Rotterdam.


For details about the procedures and duties of the NomCom you may refer 
to documents ripe-727 and ripe-728.


The deadline for volunteering is Sunday November 10th 2019.

The only way to volunteer is by using the form at
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ripenomcom

Daniel Karrenberg
Chair of the 2019-2020 RIPE NomCom

Re: [ripe-list] Call for Volunteers to Serve on the 2019-2020 RIPE NomCom

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Dear colleagues,

So far we have 25 volunteers for the NomCom. Thank you!

   Alexander Isavnin   Internet Protection Society
 Andreas Wkittkemper  Verizon Deutschland GmbH
   Antonio Prado SBTAP
   Arnold NipperDE-CIX Management GmbH
Benno OvereinderNLnet Labs
Brian NisbetHEAnet
   Dmitry Burkov RU-CENTER
Dmitry Kohmanyuk Hostmaster.UA
Geoff Huston APNIC
 Gert Döring   SpaceNet AG
   Hervé Clément Orange SA
Jim Reid  RTFM llp
   Joe Abley  Public Interest Registry
   Marcus Stoegbauer   Megaport / ECIX
   Martin Winter  Network Device Education Foundation (NetDEF)
   Mircea Ulinic  DigitalOcean
  Ondřej CaletkaCESNET
Pascal Gloor  Quickline AG
 Paul HoogstederMeanie
  Randy Bush  Arrcus Inc & IIJ & RGnet
Robert Evans  Jisc
 Sander Steffann   Global NOG Alliance
 Stefan Wahl   Megaport / ECIX
Wolfgang TremmelDE-CIX Management GmbH
 Wolfgang Zenker punkt.de GmbH


The RIPE community is more diverse than this pool of volunteers.
Please come forward and volunteer at
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ripenomcom

The deadline for volunteering is Sunday November 10th 2019.
If this deadline is too soon for you, please let me know.
I might invoke pragmatism and extend it.

Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] CoC and the PDP

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Randy, 


Of course I am flattered by your trust in the RIPE community. I am worried 
about just the abuse that you mention in the IETF context. I see the RIPE 
community changing and I remain concerned about abuse in the future. Yes we 
need to evolve our CoC *** with the appropriate checks and balances against 
abuse ***. 

The violent reactions I get when I say this are worrisome and they hurt!
Ah, full circle back to the subject. Ironic, isn‘t it? Maybe I should see a 
trusted contact?

Daniel
---
Sent from a handheld device.

> On 20. Oct 2019, at 17:46, Randy Bush wrote:
> 
> hi leslie:
> 
> i agree with you, in this context and with the proposal's intent within
> the ripe culture.
> 
> 
> 
> i suspect that there are a number of us who are made uncomfortable, not
> by this proposal, but because, at the same time, a coc change process is
> occurring in the ietf, where it is being used to suppress dissent with
> the corporatisation and destruction of the structure and to actually
> protect a clique of bullies.
> 
> 
> 
> but again, i agree with you, and support the coc proposal.
> 
> randy
> 
> 

Re: [ripe-list] Who will be the next RIPE Chair .... and Vice Chair ?

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Jim,

All information sent to the NomCom is treated as confidential as per ripe-728. 
In order to to re-enforce that, the NomCom mail is handled by a dedicated 
server. The list of nominees will of course be published in accordance with 
ripe-728. 
 
Daniel

---
Sent from a handheld device.

> On 17. Oct 2019, at 12:06, Jim Reid  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 17 Oct 2019, at 11:01, Daniel Karrenberg  wrote:
>> 
>> ...
>> I am happy to answer any further questions you may have.
> 
> Thanks Daniel. Are the nominations sent to nominati...@ripe-nomcom.org 
> anonymised? ie Is is just the nomcom who gets to see who was nominated by 
> whom?
> 
> 
> 

[ripe-list] Who will be the next RIPE Chair .... and Vice Chair ?

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Dear RIPE participants,

Next year, a nominations committee (NomCom) will select two people to 
fill the positions of RIPE Chair and Vice Chair, with help from the 
wider community. As chair of the 2019-2020 RIPE NomCom, I invite you to 
nominate candidates for these positions.


As members of the RIPE community, you will have some idea of what the 
RIPE Chair is responsible for and what kind of person you would like to 
see in this role - and  the revived Vice Chair role. Please think about 
suitable candidates, talk with them, discuss this with your peers, and 
nominate people who will have the support of the community.


You may nominate any member of the RIPE community for either position. 
Self-nominations are also permitted. NomCom members are not eligible to 
be considered.


You might also consider volunteering for the NomCom. I have made a 
separate call for this, which you can find on the ripe mailing list.


Send your nominations to  and include a 
description of the skills or expertise that make your candidate a 
desirable choice. Please also include a working email address or 
telephone number for the nominee and indicate whether they are aware of 
your nomination.


The Nomcom will also be interested in your opinion about the performance 
of the incumbent, Hans Petter Holen.


The deadline for all nominations is Sunday, 15 December 2019.

You can find more information in the relevant RIPE Documents:

ripe-714: A brief description of the RIPE Chair’s role.
ripe-727: Information about the selection process.
ripe-728: Detailed information about the NomCom

I am happy to answer any further questions you may have.

Daniel Karrenberg
Chair of the 2019-2020 RIPE NomCom

Re: [ripe-list] Code of Conduct 3.0

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Many of the Malcolm’s concerns are also trouble me quire a bit. So I would be 
very surprised if there was consensus about the CoC. 

Daniel


---
Sent from a handheld device.

> On 16. Oct 2019, at 14:24, Malcolm Hutty  wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I understand that on Thursday afternoon the RIPE Plenary will be invited
> to adopt “Code of Conduct v3.0”. Unfortunately I must leave Rotterdam at
> lunchtime, so I am writing to share with you my reasons for believing it
> should not be approved.
> 
> Code of Conduct v3.0 proposes the creation of a new entity, the “CoC
> Team” who will be invested with the power to hear allegations of breach
> of the Code of Conduct and decide what sanctions, if any, to apply to
> the community member in violation.
> 
> Planned sanctions include, amongst other things,
> 1.Not allowing someone to participate further in RIPE Meetings and/or
> other RIPE community spaces, for a set period or an indefinite period
> 2.A public reprimand
> 3.Requiring that a public apology is made
> 
> Denying someone the opportunity to participate in RIPE is clearly a
> serious step. Issuing a public reprimand, or requiring a public apology
> (i.e. admission of guilt) is potentially seriously damaging to a
> person’s reputation. Since a public reprimand might make reference to
> the purposes of the Code, including the prevention of sexual harassment
> and racist abuse, and assert that the person was found to have violated
> the Code, but not necessarily say what the individual is alleged to have
> actually done, a public reprimand from the CoC team could have lasting
> impact on a person’s career prospects.
> 
> It is therefore a matter of great importance to every member of this
> community that if such sanctions are ever applied, the most scrupulous
> process is used.
> 
> Unfortunately, in my view the process set out in Code of Conduct 3.0 is
> very far from fit for purpose.
> 
> For a start, given the gravity of the intended sanctions, I am stunned
> to see that the Code neither requires nor suggests that the CoC Team
> should attempt to speak to the accused individual to get their side of
> the story. Indeed, there is no requirement that the accused person is
> even informed of the details of the allegation against them. A public
> reprimand could be the first the subject hears of the matter.
> 
> The right to be heard before being punished is not an obscure legalistic
> procedural device. It is fundamental to basic fairness.
> 
> Granted, a right of appeal has been added to the Code (thank you Daniel
> Karrenberg for your urgent intervention!), but I do not think appeal
> after the fact is sufficient correction to a basically abusive process.
> 
> Although the most egregious, that is far from the only flaw with Code of
> Conduct 3.0. It positively encourages anonymous complaints. Complaints
> are also encouraged not only from alleged “victims”, but also from
> “witnesses”
> 
> The Code promises that the identity of the complainant will not be
> disclosed to the subject of the complaint, potentially making it
> impossible to understand the circumstances or provide an explanation.
> The person submitting a complaint is not disqualified under the Code
> from sitting as a member of the CoC Team adjudicating the complaint.
> Given that the Code also invites witness reports and assures witnesses
> that their reports will not be viewed less favourably because they have
> made multiple reports, it would be entirely consistent with the Code for
> the CoC Team to also act as as a Code of Conduct patrol, making reports
> of violations and then sitting in judgement on their own allegations.
> 
> Thanks to anonymity, nobody outside the CoC team would even know if this
> were occurring.
> 
> There are other problems, but this message is already too long.
> 
> Throughout the Code, the emphasis is consistently on the CoC Team’s
> responsibility to the reporter. There is no such recognition of a
> responsibility to the person ‘under investigation’ – by which I mean,
> the person who is the subject of the complaint; there is actually no
> expectation set in the Code that the CoC Team would actually conduct an
> investigation, rather than proceeding directly to judgement on the basis
> solely of the information contained in the allegation.
> 
> I have described some serious flaws, but in my view, it is not worth
> trying to rescue this proposal with patches to each of them. The
> document as a whole is riddled with bias, and should be abandoned. The
> Diversity Taskforce has demonstrated that it is not an appropriate body
> to be undertaking this work.
> 
> Any serious attempt to create a process for enforcement of a Code of
> Conduct sh

[ripe-list] Call for Volunteers to Serve on the 2019-2020 RIPE NomCom

[Daniel Karrenberg]

[Apologies for the repeat. A number of people told me they had missed 
this message because I sent it from a single purpose address.]


Dear RIPE Participant,

RIPE will choose its next chair and a vice chair by way of a nominations 
committee. Ten volunteers, randomly selected from the community, will 
make that choice with the help of the whole community. These ten people 
plus a number of non-voting liaisons and advisors will form the NomCom. 
The NomCom will start to work around January 2020 and make its selection 
soon after the next RIPE meeting in May of that year. The job of the 
NomCom is to select people who have what it takes and also have the 
support of the community.


As chair of the 2019-2020 Nomcom, my job is to organise the work and 
help the volunteers with making their choice. Therefore I call on you to 
volunteer. Ideally we are looking for about 100 volunteers representing 
a broad range of RIPE participants. Ten of those people will be randomly 
selected to serve on the NomCom. To qualify for serving as a voting 
volunteer you have to have attended three of the five most recent RIPE 
meetings up to the meeting taking place this week in Rotterdam.


For details about the procedures and duties of the NomCom you may refer 
to documents ripe-727 and ripe-728.


The deadline for volunteering is Sunday November 10th 2019.

The only way to volunteer is by using the form at
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ripenomcom

Daniel Karrenberg
Chair of the 2019-2020 RIPE NomCom

[ripe-list] Call for Volunteers to Serve on the 2019-2020 RIPE NomCom

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Dear RIPE Participant,

RIPE will choose its next chair and a vice chair by way of a nominations 
committee. Ten volunteers, randomly selected from the community, will 
make that choice with the help of the whole community. These ten people 
plus a number of non-voting liaisons and advisors will form the NomCom. 
The NomCom will start to work around January 2020 and make its selection 
soon after the next RIPE meeting in May of that year. The job of the 
NomCom is to select people who have what it takes and also have the 
support of the community.


As chair of the 2019-2020 Nomcom, my job is to organise the work and 
help the volunteers with making their choice. Therefore I call on you to 
volunteer. Ideally we are looking for about 100 volunteers representing 
a broad range of RIPE participants. Ten of those people will be randomly 
selected to serve on the NomCom. To qualify for serving as a voting 
volunteer you have to have attended three of the five most recent RIPE 
meetings including the meeting taking place this week in Rotterdam.


For details about the procedures and duties of the NomCom you may refer 
to

https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-727 and
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-728.

The deadline for volunteering is Sunday November 10th 2019.

The only way to volunteer is by using the form at
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ripenomcom

Daniel Karrenberg
Chair of the 2019-2020 RIPE NomCom

Re: [ripe-list] Take a RIPE NCC Certified Professionals exam at RIPE 79

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 10 Oct 2019, at 18:17, Randy Bush wrote:


hi daniel,


The RIPE NCC has been offering training courses since 1993.


which i have always said is excellent; though i have a joke about
what is essentially a product which is so complex to use that the
customer has to take a course to use it.

that is not my issue.  it is that we are starting down the path of
folk wandering around out there saying they are ripe certified net
engs.

see you soon!

randy


I see your point.

From https://www.ripe.net/support/certified-professionals:

“A digital badge contains verifiable information about the skills and 
knowledge it certifies. It holds details about the exam and assessment 
criteria that can be verified by a third party. This programme invites 
you to become recognised as an Internet professional.”


So if someone were to ‘over-claim’ here it may very well back-fire 
for them.


However, I am certain the responsible people at the NCC have heard you 
and will consider the ‘branding’ in the light of your concerns.


Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] Take a RIPE NCC Certified Professionals exam at RIPE 79

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 8 Oct 2019, at 14:46, Randy Bush wrote:


[ cc: ripe list ]

For the first time, we will offer you the opportunity to become a 
RIPE

NCC Certified Professional at a RIPE Meeting.


i think this is horribly broken.  neither ripe nor the ncc should be
certifying anything except recorded ip resources.

randy



Randy,

The RIPE NCC has been offering training courses since 1993. I remain 
convinced that going out there to train people is one of the reasons 
that we have a strong community that understands what we are about and 
supports us. It also helps us to keep in touch with people on the shop 
floor. I value this activity very much and so does the membership. 
Whether we like it or not, one of the expectations with training these 
days is something more tangible than a ‘certificate of 
participation’. We have to meet these expectations. Besides that it 
also provides us with some measure of the effectiveness of our training 
efforts. So nothing is broken and certainly not horribly broken.


No-one will force you to take the test. ;-)

Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] Call for consensus RIPE Chair & Vice Chair selection by Nominating Committee

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Hurray  

Re: [ripe-list] Call for consensus RIPE Chair & Vice Chair selection by Nominating Committee

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 25 Jul 2019, at 15:41, Peter Koch wrote:

> The approach to stick very closely to the text of RFC 7437 leads to some
> ambiguities that the initial NomCom might want to seek to resolve.

Anything we should fix now?

Re: [ripe-list] New RIPE Document: RIPE Accountability Task Force Final Report

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 04/07/2019 13:37, Antony Gollan wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> The final report of the RIPE Accountability Task Force is now published
> as a RIPE Document.
> 
> The document is available here:
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-723/
> 

Thank you for publishing this as a RIPE document.

It is unfortunate that the document does not list authors and relegates
naming the contributors to an appendix. Let us not continue this bad
practice! The principal authors, or the task force members have to be
mentioned up front. People who helped and contributed should be
mentioned in acknowledgements. We should avoid the impression of a
faceless and in-transparent process and give proper credit to those who
did the work.

For that same reason I also suggest that documents that are the result
of a community process such as a task force should include a short
description of the process that led to the publication of the document.

Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force: Final Report

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Before I get inundated with questions... ;-)

The URL for the drafts on the RIPE Chair Selection Process is

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-chair-discuss/2019-May/000254.html

The discussion is happening on that list.

Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] https://www.ripe.net/ inappropriate javascript

[Daniel Karrenberg]

> On 5. May 2019, at 17:26, Randy Bush  wrote:
> 
> ... i'm happy if it is even possible to find what i need on these sites
> with less than 42 clicks.  so if the webfolk know how to make it easier
> and faster to get through those 42 clicks without invading my privacy,
> cool with me.  of course, that last bit is, as you point out, not
> simple.

It is not complicated either! Not as simple and convenient as the googles of 
this world make it if one sells one’s visitors‘ privacy in exchange for that 
convenience.

But it is certainly possible, just not as convenient and possibly more 
expensive.

We need to be vigilant for individuals or organizations falling into that trap.
And we need to keep educating professionals in our industry to recognize such 
traps and temptations. Violating the privacy of others is just too easy with 
the technology we have created. A sound education in professional ethics and 
constant vigilance is the only effective way to mitigate these risks. This is 
neither easy nor convenient but the alternatives are bad enough to make it 
necessary.

So thank you Randy for asking the pertinent questions politely and thank you 
others who expressed that they care. I am sure the RIPE NCC will fully fix this 
glitch after already applying a partial fix very quickly. 

Enough for Sunday evening. 

 Daniel (not speaking for the RIPE NCC)

Re: [ripe-list] https://www.ripe.net/ inappropriate javascript

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 02/05/2019 21:30, Randy Bush wrote:
> https://www.ripe.net/ wants to load commercial javascript tracking ware
> from doubleclick.net and googletagmanager.  is this necessary and
> appropriate?

My personal *opinion*: likely not and definitely not.

However unless more people ask this question at least as politely as you
do, nothing is likely to change.

Daniel

[ripe-list] Fwd: possible abuse case with our emails / spam from euromoney/capacitymedia

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Forgot to say something important:

There is no proof that the published attendee lists, which contain no
e-mail addresses, were abused.

Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE, 75

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 20/10/2017 14:11, Malcolm Hutty wrote:

> However, when the taskforce asked NCC staff to look into this, they
> discovered (to their own surprise) that the NCC has no formal document
> of any nature that sets out a normative expectation that the RIPE NCC
> will so much as take community policy into account. That seems a curious
> omission.

I agree this is not easy to find. But it is there:

ripe-161 - "A New Structure for the RIPE NCC / De-Facto Organisational
Rules (Revised)" states:

"The RNA (RIPE NCC Association, dfk) will be advised by the well
established informal group of technical experts known as RIPE (Reseaux
IP Europeens)."


ripe-350 - "Policy Development Process in RIPE" states:

"Since its creation in 1989, RIPE has from time to time agreed on common
practices. These common practices may come in different forms and/or
under different names:

- best common practice (or BCP),
- recommendations to the community,
- requests to the RIPE NCC,
- recommendations to the RIPE NCC,
- or just policy."

The PDP has evolved; it closely involves the RIPE NCC in the policy process.


The one thing you will not find is an *obligation* of the RIPE NCC
Association to do exactly what RIPE requests. It has been pointed out
that this is not feasible to achieve in any formal sense.

I repeat: The architecture of RIPE and the RIPE NCC is constructed such
that the *huge* overlap between RIPE participants and RIPE NCC members
ensures that the RIPE NCC association acts on requests and
recommendations from the RIPE community.  The overlap prevents serious
conflicts between RIPE and the RIPE NCC.

Aside: ripe-161 also deals with defenses against capture of the RIPE NCC
Association. It may be worth checking if these defenses are still
effective after the various changes to the RIPE NCC Articles in recent
years. This appears to be outside the scope of this task force, but I
would support if the task force recommended this be looked at.


> You are quite right to point out that the NCC has faithfully followed
> the community's will, and while you and your fellow Board members remain
> in charge, I am sure it will continue to do so. But part of the purpose
> of this exercise is to help create the conditions that make it more
> likely that your legacy in this respect is honoured by those that
> succeed you. Nothing we do can guarantee that will happen, but writing
> down that the NCC's history of implementing community policy is more
> than a mere coincidence of opinion will both help guide future Boards
> and give ammunition to Board members against anyone who argues that the
> NCC should do otherwise.

I have no objection at all against writing down the history and
documenting the status quo in an informal and informative way. I have
indeed offered several times to support the task force in this endeavor
by contributing my first-hand knowledge of the evolution of RIPE and the
RIPE NCC. Maybe the task force could best look at updating ripe-161 as a
first action?


> Jim correctly pointed out that the community itself, not being an entity
> with legal personality, cannot sign an MoU. That removes one option for
> how such a normative statement might be recorded - but there are several
> others. The NCC does, after all, have contracts with its members.
> 
> Personally, I think a better idea that I would like to see considered is
> to write into the RIPE NCC's governing statutes that one of the purposes
> of the NCC is to implement RIPE community policy. Of course this phrase
> would have to be suitable qualified to avoid the pitfall you mention,
> but I do not think that insurmountable, or even difficult: the NCC does
> have lawyers, after all.

I'll repeat myself:

"I encourage everyone proposing additional formalism to first state very
clearly the concrete *need* for adding it and to provide examples of
concrete instances where the absence of such formalism has caused
problems. Speculative instances in the future only count if there is
consensus that they are either very likely to occur or have catastrophic
consequences. In the latter case additional scrutiny of whether the
added formalism will actually prevent the catastrophe is required.
Repeat: state a *need* not a desire or other lesser reason."


> Finally, may I gently suggest that the extremely defensive attitude of
> some prominent community members to the work of this Taskforce is not a
> good look. Most of us are reasonably long-standing members of the
> community ourselves, and fully share both its values and well-proven way
> of doing things. Our aim is to support this community, not to undermine it.





[all substance of this message above this line. no *need* to read on.]

Malcolm,

In the unlikely event your characterization of "prominent" and
"defensive" meant to include me ;-) ...

I assure you that I am not defensive, not in the least! I have done my
part, specifically for RIPE and the RIPE NCC. Both have been
spectacularly successful. In addition 

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE 75

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 19/10/2017 00:53, William Sylvester wrote:
> 1. Do you think the "public benefit" or "the greater good" is a core 
> aspirational factor in decisions made by the RIPE community? Alternatively, 
> are RIPE community members merely working/cooperating for their own benefit? 
> (If the community is only working for its own benefit, why have a last /8 
> policy that benefits newcomers, for example).

RIPE discussions and actions have always had a strong element of
considering the benefit of the RIPE community as a whole versus the
interests of individuals or smaller groups. We also have a habit of
considering the larger Internet community beyond RIPE. As such we have
set an example that has often been followed by other regions. This has
also enormously strengthened our standing in the world in general.

I see no way to effectively formalise this. There is no way we can make
effective rules to prevent us from becoming selfish as a group if all of
us really want to be.

> 2. There is no explicit obligation anywhere that the RIPE NCC will adhere to 
> policies developed by the RIPE community. Strictly speaking, the RIPE NCC is 
> accountable to its membership only. Does the community feel that the RIPE NCC 
> should make a declaration or perhaps sign an MoU stating that it will follow 
> RIPE community policies?

This has been beaten to death. For the record: Past practice has shown
this to work extremely well. The real reason for this success is that
there is a huge overlap between RIPE and the RIPE NCC membership. The
system is constructed to ensure this. This overlap, and this overlap
alone, ensures that the right things happen. The important reason for
RIPE and the RIPE NCC being different is that RIPE is totally open to
anyone. This ensures that everyone can be heard without any formal
barrier. Once money and contracts come in, a more defined group needs to
take decisions. For this we constructed the RIPE NCC as an association,
the most democratic legal form we could find. Again: it is the *huge*
overlap between the RIPE community and the RIPE NCC membership that
makes this work.

I know that this is at the margin of the charter of the task force, but:
The community needs to watch carefully that the composition of the RIPE
NCC membership is such that this overlap continues to exist. If for
instance the composition of the RIPE NCC membership were to
over-represent a particular group, such as address brokers, the whole
system may become unstable.


> 3. There is no definition of consensus as it is used within the RIPE 
> community. Is this something that is worth documenting?
> We will share some more details on this mailing list after our presentation 
> at RIPE 75.

Personally I do not thing this is "worth documenting". See my other
message about adding formalism. Additionally: The IETF has a
considerable history of work in this area. I suggest we learn from it. I
do not suggest we copy it.

Daniel
speaking as co-founder of RIPE, initial architect of the RIPE NCC
association, steady contributor to both
and *not* speaking as a RIPE NCC employee

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE 75

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 19/10/2017 12:21, Nigel Titley wrote:
> I'm generally against additional complication, especially where past
> practice doesn't give cause to worry, but as I say it doesn't really
> bother me.

For what the opinion of one of the initial architects of this is worth:

Complication and over-specification bothers me greatly. Nothing good has
ever come of it. A lot of headaches and some real badness have. Any
unnecessary formalism creates friction losses at the very least.

I encourage everyone proposing additional formalism to first state very
clearly the concrete *need* for adding it and to provide examples of
concrete instances where the absence of such formalism has caused
problems. Speculative instances in the future only count if there is
consensus that they are either very likely to occur or have catastrophic
consequences. In the latter case additional scrutiny of whether the
added formalism will actually prevent the catastrophe is required.
Repeat: state a *need* not a desire or other lesser reason.

Daniel
speaking as co-founder of RIPE, initial architect of the RIPE NCC
association, steady contributor to both
and *not* speaking as a RIPE NCC employee

Re: [ripe-list] Announcing Diversity Task Force draft charter, plus activities at RIPE 75

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Shane, others,

thank you for producing this charter. I am very happy to see the
essential elements of a task force here: a work plan and a fixed date
for reviewing the continued usefulness of the task force i. This
chaerter is a sound basis for constructive work to improve RIPE.

Could you please consider removing the words "and marginalised" from the
charter. The word marginalised implies that the RIPE community actively
and intentionally marginalises anyone. This is not the case and
therefore these words are not appropriate. Omitting them does not change
the substance of the charter in any way either.

Thank you

Daniel
speaking as co-founder of RIPE,
steady contributor and former vice-chairman

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force: Updated Draft Scope and Presentation at RIPE 74

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Colleagues,

Below I make three concrete proposals for the charter.

More than 25 years of experience with RIPE and similar organisations
suggests to me that this charter still needs work.  This still is a
charter for a 'formalisation working group' rather than a 'task force'.
A 'working group' because the definition of the tasks is very broad and
there is no end-date.  'Formalisation' because the whole arrangement and
context suggests formalisation as an inevitable outcome.  We should make
it very very clear that we are not starting an endless process that will
inevitably lead to more process and formalisation.

Process and formalisation is not automatically and universally a good thing.
Formalisation does have drawbacks and risks.  Formalisation is not a
prerequisite for fairness, openness and transparency . Formalisation is
often opposed to pragmatism and bottom-up consensus driven community work.

Since 'nothing has happened' if it is not on the mailing list,
please comment here on these three specific proposals. Thank you!


Proposal 1

Ideally a task force charter states a rather narrowly defined task and
also lists expected results, such as specific documents.  In order to
avoid spending more time and energy arguing over this I suggest, as a
compromise, to add the following language:

"The task force will publish and maintain a work plan.
For each document under development the work plan will show when drafts
will be published and how and when community consensus will be achieved
on the final result."

This allows the task force to organise its work and at the same time it
helps to conduct the work transparently and with track-able goals.


Proposal 2

Ideally a task force charter contains when and how the task force will
finish.  In order to avoid spending more time and energy arguing over
this I suggest, by way of compromise, to add the following sentence:

"This charter will be reviewed by the community
no later than the second RIPE meeting in 2018."

This avoids setting up an endless task force and provides the
opportunity to modify or add tasks based on the work already completed.


Proposal 3

In order to clarify that there is definitely no intent to propose new
procedures and formalisms right away, I propose to add the following
sentence after "Publish recommendations for the RIPE community."

"The task force will not propose or recommend
specific new procedures or formalisms."

This makes the charter explicitly reflect the intention of the task
force as stated by Filiz earlier in this discussion.
Such tasks very well be added later once we have considered all
alternatives and have established community consensus to develop
specific procedures or formalisms.


Since 'nothing has happened' if it is not on the mailing list,
please comment here on these specific proposals. Thank you!


Daniel (Supporting the RIPE Community since 1989)




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force: Updated Draft Scope and Presentation at RIPE 74

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Filiz, task force members,

Thank you for changing from 'document' to 'assemble a list'.
That is much clearer and partly addresses a major concern.

A number of real concerns remain with the current draft.
Therefore I will make three specific proposals to improve it
in the following message. This is not 'wordsmithing' but a matter of
substance.  I do not particularly enjoy having to have this
conversation.  During a sabbatical year other activities appear
much more gratifying.

Best

Daniel

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force - Draft Scope

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Filiz, William, task force members,

Thank you for putting together this draft scope.

After reading it a couple of times this sounds to me more and more like
the  charter for a RIPE 'formalisation committee' than like a document
describing the *task* of a 'task force'.

One of our 'RIPE values' that I personally consider quite important is
that we are first and foremost pragmatic and that we are naturally
skeptical of formalisation and creating too much 'process'.
Maybe we should have a refreshing, in more than one sense of that word,
discussion about our consensus on what our 'RIPE vlaues' are.
But that is a little besides the point of my suggestion here.

RIPE creates task forces to produce specific results and I suggest that
we write this scoping document accordingly. What is it that the task
force should produce?  What is the time frame for it?  The scope of a
task force should *not* be to create or "document" new formal process on
behalf of the community, nor should it be open ended.

I offer two rough examples for writing down the scope:

"The RIPE Accountability Task Force will build consensus in the RIPE
community that our way of working is transparent and accountable by the
first RIPE meeting in 2018."

"The RIPE Accountabily Task Force will produce a document describing any
deficiencies in the working of the RIPE community concerning
transparency and accountability as well as suggestions on how to address
these deficiencies. The task force will continuously collect community
input and produce the final document in time for community discussion at
the first RIPE meeting in 2018."

Both approaches work for me. I am also not hammering on the detailed
language or the specific deadline. The scope of a task force needs to be
as concise as possible with a specific result and a specific deadline.

Daniel
"Contributing to the RIPE Community since 1989." ;-)