Re: [ripe-list] Two Documents from the Code of Conduct Task Force

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Leo, all,

I've several inputs/questions related to both documents.

1) I understand that if actions on someone are applied, for example, leaving 
the meeting, and then the appeal is in his/her favor (there was a 
misunderstanding, false or wrong perception of witness, etc.), there are legal 
risks if not properly compensated and even publicly recognized the mistake. I 
think we should have some text on that.

2) I don't agree that the CoC Team, even being different persons, is the right 
way to take care of possible Appeals.

3) I don't think is right to "permanently" ban anyone. It is like long-term 
prison, and everyone can make a mistake and correct the situation or his 
behavior. I understand that this will happen only in expectational 
circumstances, however, I feel that just having "for a period of time" is a 
more prudent path.

4) Is not clear to me if someone removed from a f2f event will also be banned 
from the mailing lists. I understand that not?

5) I don't think it makes any sense to "remove" someone from a virtual event. I 
will agree in only disallowing him to speak up.

6) Same a 3 above, I don't think anyone can be removed permanently from a 
mailing list. In fact, if he/she want to keep participating, it is plain easy 
to create an alternative email and rejoin, even if not posting. Similarly, can 
happen 5 above. Should we be realistic in what we can enforce?
 
 
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 14/9/22, 8:34, "ripe-list en nombre de Leo Vegoda" 
 escribió:

Dear RIPE community,

Earlier today, the Code of Conduct TF published two documents for the
community's review.

We updated the document describing the Code of Conduct Team's
operational procedures based on community input. We have also
published a document describing a selection process for the Code of
Conduct Team.

You can find a blog post summarising the changes and linking to the drafts 
here:


https://labs.ripe.net/author/leo_vegoda/two-documents-from-the-code-of-conduct-task-force/

Please review the documents and share feedback by the end of September.

Comments on any aspects of either document are welcome. We're
particularly keen to get feedback on the term length for the Code of
Conduct Team.

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda for the Code of Conduct TF

-- 

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



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.




-- 

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] [diversity] Two Documents from the Code of Conduct Task Force

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

I didn't realize before most of the points that Malcolm is raising and fully 
agree with his inputs.

No explanation from the CoC? No right to defense or explain? Guilty unless you 
prove otherwise? Anonymous?

Really shameful if that's all correct. So please, the CoC should respond to 
each of those points to verify if is that way or it is being misunderstood.


Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 14/9/22, 13:45, "diversity en nombre de Malcolm Hutty" 
 escribió:

I will briefly reiterate my view that this process is unfair to the subject 
of a complaint and potentially a means of abuse in its own right.

This has not changed since the previous version, so I shall not elaborate 
in detail. However I shall summarise some key problems that the complaint 
subject may face.

The sanctions the CoC team are authorised to apply include those that would 
be devastating to the reputation and career of the accused, such as loss of 
office, publicly labelling them a racist or a sex attacker, or formally barring 
them from the RIPE community. It is therefore alarming to recognise:

* The CoC team are not required to even explain the nature or circumstances 
of the complaint to the accused person. This is both unfair to the accused, and 
undermines any potential the process has to act in a corrective, rather than 
punitive, fashion.

* The CoC team are not required to give the person who is the subject of 
the complaint an opportunity to explain themselves, or to deny, justify or 
excuse their actions, or to provide necessary context. This is inherently 
unfair and will undoubtedly lead to unjust and insupportable outcomes.

* The complaint may be made anonymously. In itself this is unfair to the 
subject, who may well be unable to understand or recognise the incident 
referred to without this information, and who certainly will be deprived of the 
opportunity to identify abusive and malicious complaints.

* The CoC team are not required to render a reasoned decision, only an 
outcome. So the accused may never know either what he was accused of, or what 
the CoC team believed or disbelieved.

* The process does not impose any duty of fair treatment, honesty 
impartiality or independence on the CoC investigators

* Because the complaint is made anonymously, and there is no duty of 
independence on the CoC team, the CoC team investigating a complaint and 
rendering a decision may include the person who raised the complaint, and 
without even realising this.

* The process does not adopt a standard of proof, and leaves the CoC team 
free to adopt a "guilty until proven innocent" standard - and in a context 
where the accused doesn't even have the opportunity to prove themselves 
innocent because they might never be consulted or even contacted before a final 
decision is rendered.

* The process does not adopt a standard for assessing the gravity of 
complaints, and leaves the CoC team free to adopt arbitrary standards and apply 
them inconsistently between one complaint and another.

These features alone make this process entirely unfair and inappropriate 
for a procedure that may have serious professional, social and reputational 
consequences for the person who is the subject of the complaint. I expect that 
with further study additional serious deficiencies could be identified. It 
reads like a procedure for a preliminary triage of less serious and informal 
complaints that will be resolved amicably, not for a process that could bar 
someone from the community and potentially end their career. 

I do not believe any person could feel "safe and included" in a community 
that applies such a process. I certainly do not.

My recommendation would be that this process is immediately rescinded, and 
RIPE NCC Legal are invited to draft a disciplinary process that upholds basic 
standards of fairness and due process, while seeking to apply the aspirations 
of the Code of Conduct. I would suggest that they take as guidance the 
objective of developing a process that would be lawful in the context of an HR 
disciplinary process for employees, when administered by community members. I 
recognise that this is not literally an employment process, and RIPE community 
members do not enjoy the legal rights of employees, but it is useful to have 
some kind of standard to apply and best not to try to reinvent the wheel; if 
there are particular features of employment protection that do not seem to RIPE 
Legal to be appropriate to apply in this context they should of course be free 
to disapply them. Once written, NCC Legal's proposal would then be remitted for 
consideration for adoption by this community.

Kind Regards,

Malcolm.

-- 
 Malcolm Hutty | Executive Director, Legal and Policy
T: +44 7789 987 023 | www.linx.net



London Internet Exchange Ltd (LINX)
c/o WeWork, 2 Minster Court, Mincing Lane London EC3R 7BB

Registered in England No. 31379

Re: [ripe-list] [diversity] Two Documents from the Code of Conduct Task Force

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Extra points (clicked too fast send) ... very important ones in my opinion, 
regarding the appointment of CoC Team members.

1) Don't see the need to ask for one person from the community, and it is fair 
easy to fake (again same point regarding enforcement).
2) I don't agree that the Chair is the one to appoint CoC members. It should be 
the community (and this will solve 1 above).
3) I even less agree on "own discretion", it is prone o subjectivity, "my 
friends", etc., we have seen this happening already many times, here and in the 
IETF. Is not right, and it is discriminatory. Again, 2, solves this.
4) I'm not convinced there is an objective way to judge "emotional 
intelligence", and even if there is, I feel this is discriminatory, the same as 
considering age and gender. Again, 2 above, will solve this.


 
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 14/9/22, 12:31, "diversity en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" 
 escribió:

Hi Leo, all,

I've several inputs/questions related to both documents.

1) I understand that if actions on someone are applied, for example, 
leaving the meeting, and then the appeal is in his/her favor (there was a 
misunderstanding, false or wrong perception of witness, etc.), there are legal 
risks if not properly compensated and even publicly recognized the mistake. I 
think we should have some text on that.

2) I don't agree that the CoC Team, even being different persons, is the 
right way to take care of possible Appeals.

3) I don't think is right to "permanently" ban anyone. It is like long-term 
prison, and everyone can make a mistake and correct the situation or his 
behavior. I understand that this will happen only in expectational 
circumstances, however, I feel that just having "for a period of time" is a 
more prudent path.

4) Is not clear to me if someone removed from a f2f event will also be 
banned from the mailing lists. I understand that not?

5) I don't think it makes any sense to "remove" someone from a virtual 
event. I will agree in only disallowing him to speak up.

6) Same a 3 above, I don't think anyone can be removed permanently from a 
mailing list. In fact, if he/she want to keep participating, it is plain easy 
to create an alternative email and rejoin, even if not posting. Similarly, can 
happen 5 above. Should we be realistic in what we can enforce?


Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet



El 14/9/22, 8:34, "ripe-list en nombre de Leo Vegoda" 
 escribió:

Dear RIPE community,

Earlier today, the Code of Conduct TF published two documents for the
community's review.

We updated the document describing the Code of Conduct Team's
operational procedures based on community input. We have also
published a document describing a selection process for the Code of
Conduct Team.

You can find a blog post summarising the changes and linking to the 
drafts here:


https://labs.ripe.net/author/leo_vegoda/two-documents-from-the-code-of-conduct-task-force/

Please review the documents and share feedback by the end of September.

Comments on any aspects of either document are welcome. We're
particularly keen to get feedback on the term length for the Code of
Conduct Team.

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda for the Code of Conduct TF

-- 

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



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.




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

**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and furth

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

No, you're making the mistake if you interpret that I'm considering a single 
case.

When I read any proposed document, I try to think ahead in what can be wrong 
"in the future" not just according to the past, because clearly the goal is to 
avoid issues in the future. The past only tells us what was wrong, but the past 
has no "exclusivity" and can't be taken "alone".

As you say, precisely because there is no abundance of volunteers, we can't 
have the risk that anyone may be excluded.

Also, see how the other RIRs that have "TF" (called also WGs), APNIC and 
LACNIC, don't have any way to restrict participation.

Recently in APNIC there was a call for volunteers for a WG to review the 
complete policy manual. There were over 130 volunteers if I recall correctly, 
that joined the mailing list. However, the real participation was about 4-5 
people, and we did the job by splitting the most important changes in different 
policy proposals, all resolved by the very small set of people and almost all 
them reached consensus. No issues!

Another example is a running WG in LACNIC, for making a single policy proposal 
for the chairs elections process, as they were 2 competing policy proposals and 
we could say that they were almost a copy of the earlier one, so the chairs 
couldn't determine consensus (or actually I must say that both should have 
reached consensus). The call for the WG was open, only 5 people joined and we 
are doing the job. Again, no issues.


Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 10/4/22, 22:49, "ripe-list en nombre de Gert Doering" 
 escribió:

    Hi,

    On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 08:01:23PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
ripe-list wrote:
> Clearly the goal is to get the job done.
> 
> If TF members "a, b and c" agree to work on that, but they disagree to 
work with "d, e and f", and "d, e and f" have no problem to work with "a, b and 
c", the ones that are avoiding the work to be done is "a, b and c", not the 
others.

Jordi, your cases are hypothetical.

You are making a big fuzz out of one (1) task force that did not want
to let you (Jordi) join.  Get over it.

There is no general abundance of volunteers that are denied entry in
large numbers of task forces of great importance in RIPE land.

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael 
Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-- 

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



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.




-- 

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Gert,

Clearly the goal is to get the job done.

If TF members "a, b and c" agree to work on that, but they disagree to work 
with "d, e and f", and "d, e and f" have no problem to work with "a, b and c", 
the ones that are avoiding the work to be done is "a, b and c", not the others.

So, either we form two TFs for the same and then see the results for 2 TF for 
the community to decide, or, because the problem to work with others is "a, b 
and c" they should either decide to change their view, or not joint the TF.

Further to that, are you suggesting that the Chair should ask all the possible 
volunteers if they are ok to work with all the others? And if not, the Chair 
should benefit "a, b and c" instead of "d, e and f"?

This sounds to me like extremely worrying and outrageous. It is not a clear way 
to say the Chair should discriminate "d, e and f" because others aren't willing 
to work with them? Are we going to investigate the reasons and decide based on 
that? Or in that case the Chair should say "if a, b and c are willing to work 
with the others, they are free to leave, but we will not exclude anyone". Or 
are we saying that the transparency, openness, inclusivity, diversity, etc., 
etc., from this RIR community is no longer there?

My personal way, when I'm contributing with anything related to any community 
is that I must take apart any differences (personal, business, others?) that I 
may have (if any, because I don't feel actually, I've any), and work towards 
the goals in the direction that I believe is best for the community. According 
to what you say, it looks like my personal view into "contribute to the 
community" is not shared by you; fine we can disagree on that, but that's not 
seems sufficient for trying to exclude others, it is your personal decision, 
not a community decision.

How many times we have disagreed with colleagues about this or that proposal or 
comment in the list, or whatever, and that doesn't mean that in the next minute 
we find a way to reach consensus in the same or another topic? And if there is 
no consensus (or chairs believe there is no consensus), even if we go for an 
appeal, never mind what is the final decision, even if we keep disagreeing and 
we openly express our opinions, that doesn't mean that we should not be able to 
continue working together, right?

If we accept your position, we are asking the Chair to discriminate one way or 
the other. This is unacceptable. This is not about "a, b, c, d, e, or f", is 
about what is the best for the community, but NEVER excluding others. If we 
exclude others, this is no longer open, this is no longer a community.

As you correctly say very well, if a TF is excluding one or more volunteers, 
then those volunteers can do the work in parallel with the TF, and they can 
publish it and the community will need to hear both. If the Chair disallow 
that, again, we are enforcing the Chair to discriminate people, but the worst 
is that the community will need to look into the results of both TFs (if both 
become "official" or not is not relevant), because all them, anyone from the 
community, have the right to publish any documents that they do for the overall 
good of the community.
 
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 10/4/22, 17:34, "ripe-list en nombre de Gert Doering" 
 escribió:

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 02:38:32PM +, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
> Please let us know what you think, in sufficient numbers so that we can 
> understand whether the draft enjoys community consensus.

I find v3 a reasonable description of the roles and processes of (formal)
task forces, and what to expect and not to expect.


I explicitly disagree with Jordi's repeated comments about the requirement
for a non-discriminatory participation.  TFs are not something to be voted
in, or to govern anything, but to get a job done - and due to human nature,
you'll have volunteer groups that are incompatible.

Force-permitting someone "in" that the other volunteers refuse to work with 
might look good on paper ("yay, we're so non-discriminatory") but will 
just break the intent "get work done".


We shouldn't overvalue the "task force" stamp on a group of volunteers -
it's a formal vehicle to request support from the RIPE NCC, and to agree
on "this is the work we set out to do" (and volunteers are expected to
have time to do so).  This does not mean any *other* group of volunteers 
couldn't just sit together, get work done, and bring the resulting document 
up to a working group for larger consensus and publishing as a RIPE document
(like, the documents coming out of the IPv6 WG).

So, no, task forces in general are not a vehicle of exclusivity that would
need all this hubbub about full inclusion.

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v.

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

One more point that I forgot.

 

An additional argument to consider my inputs, specially 1 and 2, is that the 
creation of a TF, don’t have an appeal process. So, unless we add that 
complexity, the best way to avoid it, is precisely to ensure that 1 and 2 are 
resolved, so there is no need to that appeal process.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 10/4/22, 11:10, "ripe-list en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list" 
 escribió:

 

Hi Niall, all,

 

I need to insist in some of the points that I’ve raised on February 20th, 
rephrasing them a little bit, considering the new version:

 

1)  Elements of the TF structure of work (Rationale, Charter, etc.). I 
don’t agree it should be the Chair unique responsibility to define them. May be 
the way to resolve this is that once they are drafted by the Chair, there is an 
opportunity for the community to comment on those, let’s say during a one-month 
period? Alternatively, the TF itself may be able to propose a review on that 
once the work is started and seek community support.

2)  There is no way an open and transparent community can accept a 
non-justified decision for appointing TF members. This is prone to arbitrary 
and discriminatory decisions, even if not done in bad faith. Considering the 
“usual” level of participation, I think it will be fine to just call for 
volunteers. You will never get 100 volunteers. I will even agree to say “the 
Chair is suggesting the following experts and we open a n weeks period for 
other volunteers, up to a limit of 10 participants” (just an example). 
Expertise is not the only important thing. You can have experts that don’t have 
the time, or have a bias, or whatever. Allowing open participation removes the 
arbitrariness and provides a balance not only with experts, but also with other 
community eyes.

3)  Consensus building. I’m happier with the new version of this section. 
However, there is something that is still not resolved. If the TF members don’t 
reach an agreement in specific issues, the report from the TF must show that 
disagreement and explain the different views, because that is most probably 
very representative of what the community could think and it is a way to be 
very transparent so the community can either provide alternative views that may 
be the TF didn’t consider, or balance the TF outcome, etc.

4)  Participation of observers in TF calls. Exactly the same we are saying 
that TF mailing list and minutes must be open to the community, the community 
must be able to join the calls (if the TF is using them) as observers (no 
voice, no “vote”). Minutes are good, but they aren’t scripts of all what is 
being said or discussed, and there may be details that are very important and 
can provide means for observers to contribute with additional suggestions from 
details in that discussion.

5)  This is not only relevant for the TFs and don’t belong to this document 
but it shows very well the point I’m trying to make. We need a clear 
pre-defined well-known timing in case a TF outcome needs to go for community 
consensus. This is the reason I’m saying that the governance documents should 
also use the PDP, because it is a well-known process with well-known timing.

 

 

Overall comment that explains my objections/proposed changes: We know that 
whatever is drafted by the TF will need to reach the community consensus or 
bring the creation of a new document(s), etc. However we also know that the 
participation in consensus decision (either in a direct outcome from the TF or 
subsequent documents) is extremely low. So, it is easy to understand that a 
report from a TF that doesn’t neccesarily have a community “overall” support, 
may not receive sufficient inputs (either in favour or against) because many 
community members can think “oh well, it was a TF working on that, they know 
what they are doing, it should be ok”. So there is a lower level of review, etc.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 23/3/22, 15:38, "ripe-list en nombre de Niall O'Reilly" 
 escribió:

 

Dear Colleagues,

[Please view this message as either plain text or HTML, according to your 
preference.]

In view of significant comments received during what we had expected to be a 
restricted last call, Mirjam and I have decided to make a fresh draft of the 
proposed document on RIPE Task Forces and to make this available for your 
review here. An onward link leads to an alternative presentation of the draft, 
in which recent changes are highlighted.

We are very grateful to Boris Duval and Antony Gollan, who did most of the real 
work.

We plan to close the review period just before 24:00 UTC on Sunday 10 April 
next, and to announce a two-week last-call period shortly after that.

Please let us know what you think, in sufficient numbers so that we can 
understand whether the draft enjoys community consensus.

For your convenience, the table below shows the dat

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Niall, all,

 

I need to insist in some of the points that I’ve raised on February 20th, 
rephrasing them a little bit, considering the new version:

 
Elements of the TF structure of work (Rationale, Charter, etc.). I don’t agree 
it should be the Chair unique responsibility to define them. May be the way to 
resolve this is that once they are drafted by the Chair, there is an 
opportunity for the community to comment on those, let’s say during a one-month 
period? Alternatively, the TF itself may be able to propose a review on that 
once the work is started and seek community support.
There is no way an open and transparent community can accept a non-justified 
decision for appointing TF members. This is prone to arbitrary and 
discriminatory decisions, even if not done in bad faith. Considering the 
“usual” level of participation, I think it will be fine to just call for 
volunteers. You will never get 100 volunteers. I will even agree to say “the 
Chair is suggesting the following experts and we open a n weeks period for 
other volunteers, up to a limit of 10 participants” (just an example). 
Expertise is not the only important thing. You can have experts that don’t have 
the time, or have a bias, or whatever. Allowing open participation removes the 
arbitrariness and provides a balance not only with experts, but also with other 
community eyes.
Consensus building. I’m happier with the new version of this section. However, 
there is something that is still not resolved. If the TF members don’t reach an 
agreement in specific issues, the report from the TF must show that 
disagreement and explain the different views, because that is most probably 
very representative of what the community could think and it is a way to be 
very transparent so the community can either provide alternative views that may 
be the TF didn’t consider, or balance the TF outcome, etc.
Participation of observers in TF calls. Exactly the same we are saying that TF 
mailing list and minutes must be open to the community, the community must be 
able to join the calls (if the TF is using them) as observers (no voice, no 
“vote”). Minutes are good, but they aren’t scripts of all what is being said or 
discussed, and there may be details that are very important and can provide 
means for observers to contribute with additional suggestions from details in 
that discussion.
 This is not only relevant for the TFs and don’t belong to this document but it 
shows very well the point I’m trying to make. We need a clear pre-defined 
well-known timing in case a TF outcome needs to go for community consensus. 
This is the reason I’m saying that the governance documents should also use the 
PDP, because it is a well-known process with well-known timing.
 

 

Overall comment that explains my objections/proposed changes: We know that 
whatever is drafted by the TF will need to reach the community consensus or 
bring the creation of a new document(s), etc. However we also know that the 
participation in consensus decision (either in a direct outcome from the TF or 
subsequent documents) is extremely low. So, it is easy to understand that a 
report from a TF that doesn’t neccesarily have a community “overall” support, 
may not receive sufficient inputs (either in favour or against) because many 
community members can think “oh well, it was a TF working on that, they know 
what they are doing, it should be ok”. So there is a lower level of review, etc.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 23/3/22, 15:38, "ripe-list en nombre de Niall O'Reilly" 
 escribió:

 

Dear Colleagues,

[Please view this message as either plain text or HTML, according to your 
preference.]

In view of significant comments received during what we had expected to be a 
restricted last call, Mirjam and I have decided to make a fresh draft of the 
proposed document on RIPE Task Forces and to make this available for your 
review here. An onward link leads to an alternative presentation of the draft, 
in which recent changes are highlighted.

We are very grateful to Boris Duval and Antony Gollan, who did most of the real 
work.

We plan to close the review period just before 24:00 UTC on Sunday 10 April 
next, and to announce a two-week last-call period shortly after that.

Please let us know what you think, in sufficient numbers so that we can 
understand whether the draft enjoys community consensus.

For your convenience, the table below shows the dates when successive drafts of 
this proposed RIPE Document were announced.

DateFromRemarks
19 Nov 2021M.Kuehne002363 Draft; suggestions invited
16 Dec 2021N.O'Reilly002402 Update; last call closing 14 Jan
3 Feb 2022N.O'Reilly002444 Update; last call extended to 18 Feb
23 Mar 2022N.O'Reillyv3 Fresh draft for review until 10 Apr

Best regards,
Niall O’Reilly

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

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Community session on proposed revised PDP - Minutes and draft version 2

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Mirjam, all,

See my responses below in-line.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 16/2/22 14:45, "ripe-list en nombre de Mirjam Kuehne" 
 escribió:


Dear colleagues,

On 26 January we held an online meeting to gather feedback about the
revised Policy Development Process (PDP). The recordings, minutes and
slides can be found here:


https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/ripe-community-plenary/minutes/revised-pdp-workshop/

Below you can find a short summary of the main points discussed at the
meeting. Based on this feedback we adjusted the draft document and
created a new red-lined version:


https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/policy-development-process-in-ripe-v2

Please review the changes carefully and provide any additional feedback
before 16 March 2022.

Kind regards,
Mirjam Kühne


Meeting Summary:
The overall sentiment was to rely on community consensus and common
sense as much as possible and to keep formalism at a minimum.

1. Author and Ownership of the Document

There was general agreement to make a distinction between the author and
owner of the PDP: the community should be listed as owner of the PDP and
the RIPE Chair as the author of the document. [1]

[Jordi] Well, I don't think we can talk about "general agreement" while some 
people still disagree with valid objections. Moreover, I don't think my point 
was correctly taken in the minutes. What I'm saying is that all the RIPE 
community documents have authors. Actually, I will say that the initial authors 
become editors ASAP the doc is released to the community for discussion and the 
goal of the authors (now editors), is to capture the inputs from the community 
so to be able to reach consensus.

I agree that all the documents must cite the original authors for archive and 
history tracking purposes. What I disagree is that the authors are named as an 
ack in the final document, unless we do that for *all the documents* so they 
don't become discriminatory towards some authors. For example: If you look at 
different policies, some authors made sure that their names are in the policy 
text, some others not. My personal perspective on this is that once a document 
reach consensus, because it is a community work, authors should not be part of 
the text of the policy. Again, they are still visible in the "proposal web 
page", but not in the final "policy web page" (or the PDF, etc.).

If we decide that the original authors should be in the final policy text, then 
it should be the same for *ALL*, not some yes, some not. Something like the ack 
section as we do in IETF docs, etc.

A couple of examples of this for both cases, looking at the latest document 
discussed, and not trying to "accuse" anyone about that, it is just something 
we have done wrong, and we shall correct from now on:

Documents that don't mentions authors:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-738 vs the latest proposal for this 
doc (where authors are cited) 
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-06

https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733 vs the latest proposal for this 
doc (where authors are cited) 
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-05 and 
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-02

Documents that mention authors explicitly:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-731 vs the latest proposal for this 
doc (where authors are cited) 
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-06.

https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-705 vs the latest proposal for this 
doc (where authors are cited) 
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-02

Now, saying the PDP that the Chair is the formal author is wrong, because that 
is like saying that only the Chair can work on that. This is a discrimination 
and we have already seen that, so this is an objective fact. When I summited a 
proposal for addressing changes in the appeal, my proposal was ignored, so a 
clear lawful discrimination (at least for many democratic countries and our 
rules can't be dictatorial and against law - we can't say "blue hair persons 
summiting documents will be ignored" because it is illegal). Anyone in the 
community, where we are all equal, can suggest a change in the PDP, the same 
that anyone can suggest a change in any other document, policy, etc.

I don't think we need at all this text "The community owns the PDP. The RIPE 
Chair is formally the author of the document", because this is our standard for 
all the documents.

If we want to make sure that this is "stated" for all the documents, not just 
for the PDP, then we should have a paragraph, may be a specific section, 
addressing that, for example:

"The community owns all the documents. Each WG chair(s) are responsible for the 
consensus process and in the case of the PDP updates, the Chair(s) are the 
responsi

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi David,

I know very well what is consensus: Been contributing in IETF and all the RIRs 
since 20+ years ago.

Of course, you're free to think this way if I'm able to be constructive or not. 
However, facts from 20 years and around 100 or policy proposals among all the 
RIRs, which reached consensus, show otherwise.

I've proven many times that I'm able to support and even defend objectively 
ideas/proposals that are against my personal subjective view point.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 20/2/22 14:29, "ripe-list en nombre de David Lamparter" 
 escribió:

On Sun, Feb 20, 2022 at 12:01:49PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
ripe-list wrote:
> You can't declare consensus in something that was developed by a TF
> that discriminated even a single participant from being part of the
> TF.

Consensus is not unanimity.  And task forces or workgroups have no
inherent need to include everyone.

In fact, consensus decision-making tries to cope with social situations
where a few participants are unable or unwilling to learn, understand
and adhere to established (by consensus) social interaction parameters.

Since I have no relevant standing and no reputational damage to fear, I
will just go and opine that you, JORDI, fall into that category.  It is
my impression that you might be unable to participate in a constructive
manner.  I am regretfully not skilled in how to express this in a way
that may help you more to address this.  If I were, I certainly would.

I would also like to point out that the tolerance you've enjoyed
hitherto can have negative impact and costs in alienating others from
participating in this forum.  I do not have the necessary insight to
make that determination but am painfully aware and afraid of the
possibility.


-David


(I have said my piece and will not be reading or responding in any
manner on this matter, neither on-list nor on any other channel.  I'm
pretty close to being alienated-out myself here.)

-- 

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



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.




-- 

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] The RIPE Code of Conduct

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Mirjam, all,

You can't declare consensus in something that was developed by a TF that 
discriminated even a single participant from being part of the TF.

That creates a problem since minute cero, and basically invalidates the process.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 3/2/22 10:57, "ripe-list en nombre de Mirjam Kuehne" 
 escribió:


Dear colleagues,

I have been thinking about what was said on this list about people being
afraid of the Code of Conduct.

I did not hear people were afraid of adopting a RIPE Code of Conduct.
Instead I heard broad consensus and I believe we managed to build a Code
of Conduct that encourages "good behaviour" and positive and
constructive engagement. I think as a community we can be proud of that
achievement.

I have the impression however, that the pure existence of a Code of
Conduct can be interpreted in different ways. Some people might see a
Code of Conduct as guidance that is there in the background to remind us
all how we want to treat each other. In that scenario it might make
sense to refer to it from time to time and to nudge each other in a
friendly way.

Other people might see a Code of Conduct as a threat and as a last
resort in case people misbehave badly. In that scenario the Code of
Conduct would be used in very exceptional cases only and would
potentially have severe consequences for a community member.

I believe that the tone in which the RIPE Code of Conduct is written and
the way it was accepted and agreed by the community, should make people
feel safe and that it would be interpreted more in the former way. I
understand from reactions to the list that this is not necessarily the
case. How can we change that?

I would like to remind you that the work of the RIPE Code of Conduct
Task Force is not finished yet and that they are working on the
implementation process. I would very much appreciate any feedback from
you to make sure we all feel comfortable and safe and protected by a
Code of Conduct. It should not be seen as a threat.

Kind Regards,
Mirjam
RIPE 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



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.




-- 

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] LAST CALL EXTENDED to 18 Feb: Draft Document: RIPE Task Forces - Definition and Guidelines

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Niall, all,

I don't think it must be the RIPE Chair the one defining Rationale, Charter, 
etc. It must be a community consensus decision. Otherwise, we may be in a 
situation where those definitions don't align with the community wishes or 
perceived needs.

There should be a draft document for all those definitions, and at least a one 
month call for consensus on that.

Alternatively, there must be a way for the Task Force members to consult the 
community and get consensus on a review on that, shortly after the TF work is 
started.

The appointment section is absolutely discriminatory. Nobody in the community 
has more rights than others. There is no way the participation from anyone can 
be restricted and that means that nobody can "appoint" members. This is clearly 
prone to manipulation, appointing "friends" or people with a well-known 
position, etc. I agree that expertise in some topics may be key, but not in all 
the cases. Willingness to devote time in the effort can be, and usually is, 
more important. In some other cases it is not about expertise, but diversity of 
language, cultures, etc.

I agree that usually a small group works better, but it is clear that you will 
never get, making an open call, a big number of active participants (which is 
already somehow restricted by the responsibilities section). It never happens 
and if it happens that's good even if it means a slower process.

We have been there already, I was discriminated (which will be illegal in most 
of the EU countries) in the CoC TF and I'm still waiting for a formal 
disclosure of the discussion on that, reasons, etc. I hope you provide it at 
some point (many months since I asked the first time), otherwise we can't 
anymore sustain that this is a bottom-up based, transparent community and clean 
consensus process.

In fact, I publicly call the RIPE trusted contacts to make sure that all the 
relevant information for that case is disclosed. I asked for that and never 
happened.

Regarding the no need for consensus in the TF. How we can do that? If we don't 
call for consensus withing the TF, the reports should make clear the different 
views, for the community to evaluate all them.

There should be also a clear pre-defined timing for the TF recommendations to 
be called for consensus in the community.
 
Finally, I think it must be possible, in order for transparency, that anyone 
joins the conference calls, meetings, or whatever the TF needs to do the job, 
as observer.
 
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 3/2/22 13:08, "ripe-list en nombre de Niall O'Reilly" 
 escribió:

Dear colleagues,

I believed I had sent this message to you all on 21 January, but 
discovered only today
that I had picked the wrong recipient, from the list of those beginning 
with “RIPE”
which my mail app presented.

At that time, Mirjam and I felt that a two-week extension to the last 
call would be
appropriate, as the suggestions received in advance of the original 
deadline
appeared uncontroversial, but ought of course to be subject to community 
review.

This extension would have expired tomorrow.
This would clearly be unreasonable, so we have set 18 February 2022 as 
the new deadline,

Please accept my apologies for my mistake.

On 16 Dec 2021, at 15:21, I (Niall O'Reilly) wrote:

> On 19 Nov 2021, at 8:48, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
>
> Based on experiences and feedback received from existing Task Forces 
> and
> other community members, we put together a document describing what a
> RIPE Task Force is and how it usually operates:
>
> 
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-task-forces-definition-and-guidelines/
>
> Please let us know if you have any questions or suggestions. This will
> be published as a RIPE Document.
>
> Mirjam and I have updated our draft in line with the suggestions we 
> received.
> The new version has been placed at 
> 
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-task-forces-definition-and-guidelines.
>
> We consider that it is now time to make a LAST CALL for further 
> comment,
> with a deadline of 17:00 UTC on Friday, 14 January 2022.
>
> Shortly after this deadline, we plan to declare that this document has
> Community Consensus and to arrange for its publication as a RIPE 
> Document.

We have updated the text to take account of some suggestions received
during the last call period, and are therefore extending the last call
period until 17:00 UTC on Friday, 18 (not 4) February 2022 to allow 
comment
on the latest changes only.

Updated draft: 

https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-task-forces-definition-and-guidelines
Tracked changed (PDF): 
https://www.ripe.net/resolveuid/4ce5895954d249f59bbb5aaa9f71a421

Thanks to C

Re: [ripe-list] LIR and Member Agreements

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Totally agree with what others have said: I don't think Denis email had 
anything wrong.

Each person has a different way to say things. Language and expressions may 
look a bit in the limit sometimes, especially when the reader is not native 
speaker (or even worst, when you aren't English native speaker and you write in 
English), but I can't find anything wrong in that specific message.

This brings us to another big problem:

* if the CoC can be interpreted in such way, we have the wrong CoC * and that's 
really dangerous, because it means that the one who judges the CoC can become a 
dictator.

(just to make sure I'm on the safe side and not being accused myself about 
breking the CoC: I'm not accusing anyone here, just expressing what a wrong CoC 
can mean)
 
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 1/2/22 10:32, "ripe-list en nombre de Carlos Friaças via ripe-list" 
 escribió:


+1.

I honestly didn't read Denis' lenghty e-mail until i read HPH's message, 
and thought "oh i really need to go back and read that" :-)

Regards,
Carlos



On Tue, 1 Feb 2022, Hank Nussbacher wrote:

> I too agree with Denis and Gert but there is no need to accept blame.  
Denis 
> is not accusing anyone.  If anything, we are all to blame for not being 
as 
> diligent as Denis.Denis has even suggested a way forward:
>
> "it will benefit the RIPE NCC to employ someone qualified or experienced 
in 
> contract law to review and re-write all the NCC's contracts and 
agreements so 
> they actually say what they were intended to mean."
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Hank-- 

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



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.




-- 

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 Draft RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP) document - for your review

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

I just looked at an English dictionary, just in case the definition is not the 
same as in Spanish, but it is:

 

Law:
the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as 
regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the 
imposition of penalties.
a rule defining correct procedure or behaviour in a sport.
 

I understand that some people consider a law as only if it is from a 
government, but that’s not the actual definition.

The PDP, the policies, etc., are our “laws”.

 

 

El 25/11/21 13:46, "ripe-list en nombre de Cynthia Revström via ripe-list" 
 escribió:

 

Jordi, I am going to leave this discussion now for a bit but please don't take 
that as me agreeing with you but simply that I find it difficult to keep 
talking with you about this without starting to say some harsh words.

 

-Cynthia

 

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:44 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list 
 wrote:

Absolutely now, it is our law. You can change the word, you can call it 
whatever you want, but it is the way we manage our processes, etc., in the 
Spanish dictionary this is law, and I guess is the same translation in English.

 

 

 

El 25/11/21 13:43, "Cynthia Revström"  escribió:

 

Can you please stop calling it law?

It is NOT a law!

 

-Cynthia

 

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:41 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
 wrote:

That’s my point, we are actually writing “our law”

 

 

El 25/11/21 13:39, "ripe-list en nombre de Cynthia Revström via ripe-list" 
 escribió:

 

But this is not law, it is a procedural document, and procedural documents can 
include suggestions even if national laws often don't.

 

The argument that it can't contain suggestions just because normal national 
laws often don't, is extremely silly.

 

-Cynthia

 

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:36 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
 wrote:

That’s my point, we are actually writing “our law”

 

 

 

Saludos,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 25/11/21 13:34, "Cynthia Revström"  escribió:

 

Yes but this is NOT law as Sander said, we are not writing a law here.

This is a procedural document in a community, not a law.

 

-Cynthia

 

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:30 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list 
 wrote:

Hi Sander,

Just count how many proposals have reached consensus even if they have not got 
a previous discussion in the list. Is a matter of numbers.

Law != suggestions, law must be strict and avoid as much as possible subjective 
interpretations.


El 25/11/21 13:17, "ripe-list en nombre de Sander Steffann" 
 escribió:

Jordi,

> 4) The text about the "idea" is wrong and untrue. Past experience doesn't 
show that.

No, *your* past behaviour doesn't show that. You just dumping policy 
proposals on a mailing list without discussing the idea first is probably one 
of the reasons why this paragraph is included, and I STRONGLY support it.

> There have been many policy proposals that didn't followed that process 
and they are actual policies. The PDP is a set of rules, strict rules of a 
process, not "rules and suggestions". We can't mix rules and suggestions in a 
formal PDP text.

Yes we can, we are not writing law.

Cheers,
Sander


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



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.




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


**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if

Re: [ripe-list] New Draft RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP) document - for your review

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Law is not just a government thing, it is also a community defined set or 
rules, procedures, etc. and yes, we need to “enforce it” otherwise, we don’t 
need a procedure that dictates how we discuss, evaluate consensus, what are the 
timings, etc.

 

 

El 25/11/21 13:44, "ripe-list en nombre de Cynthia Revström via ripe-list" 
 escribió:

 

Or maybe I am mistaken and we actually have RIPE PDP courts and police to 
enforce these laws and I have just missed them.

 

-Cynthia

 

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:42 PM Cynthia Revström  wrote:

Can you please stop calling it law?

It is NOT a law!

 

-Cynthia

 

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:41 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
 wrote:

That’s my point, we are actually writing “our law”

 

 

El 25/11/21 13:39, "ripe-list en nombre de Cynthia Revström via ripe-list" 
 escribió:

 

But this is not law, it is a procedural document, and procedural documents can 
include suggestions even if national laws often don't.

 

The argument that it can't contain suggestions just because normal national 
laws often don't, is extremely silly.

 

-Cynthia

 

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:36 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
 wrote:

That’s my point, we are actually writing “our law”

 

 

 

Saludos,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 25/11/21 13:34, "Cynthia Revström"  escribió:

 

Yes but this is NOT law as Sander said, we are not writing a law here.

This is a procedural document in a community, not a law.

 

-Cynthia

 

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:30 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list 
 wrote:

Hi Sander,

Just count how many proposals have reached consensus even if they have not got 
a previous discussion in the list. Is a matter of numbers.

Law != suggestions, law must be strict and avoid as much as possible subjective 
interpretations.


El 25/11/21 13:17, "ripe-list en nombre de Sander Steffann" 
 escribió:

Jordi,

> 4) The text about the "idea" is wrong and untrue. Past experience doesn't 
show that.

No, *your* past behaviour doesn't show that. You just dumping policy 
proposals on a mailing list without discussing the idea first is probably one 
of the reasons why this paragraph is included, and I STRONGLY support it.

> There have been many policy proposals that didn't followed that process 
and they are actual policies. The PDP is a set of rules, strict rules of a 
process, not "rules and suggestions". We can't mix rules and suggestions in a 
formal PDP text.

Yes we can, we are not writing law.

Cheers,
Sander


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



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.




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


**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

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 


**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready fo

Re: [ripe-list] New Draft RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP) document - for your review

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Absolutely now, it is our law. You can change the word, you can call it 
whatever you want, but it is the way we manage our processes, etc., in the 
Spanish dictionary this is law, and I guess is the same translation in English.

 

 

 

El 25/11/21 13:43, "Cynthia Revström"  escribió:

 

Can you please stop calling it law?

It is NOT a law!

 

-Cynthia

 

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:41 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
 wrote:

That’s my point, we are actually writing “our law”

 

 

El 25/11/21 13:39, "ripe-list en nombre de Cynthia Revström via ripe-list" 
 escribió:

 

But this is not law, it is a procedural document, and procedural documents can 
include suggestions even if national laws often don't.

 

The argument that it can't contain suggestions just because normal national 
laws often don't, is extremely silly.

 

-Cynthia

 

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:36 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
 wrote:

That’s my point, we are actually writing “our law”

 

 

 

Saludos,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 25/11/21 13:34, "Cynthia Revström"  escribió:

 

Yes but this is NOT law as Sander said, we are not writing a law here.

This is a procedural document in a community, not a law.

 

-Cynthia

 

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:30 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list 
 wrote:

Hi Sander,

Just count how many proposals have reached consensus even if they have not got 
a previous discussion in the list. Is a matter of numbers.

Law != suggestions, law must be strict and avoid as much as possible subjective 
interpretations.


El 25/11/21 13:17, "ripe-list en nombre de Sander Steffann" 
 escribió:

Jordi,

> 4) The text about the "idea" is wrong and untrue. Past experience doesn't 
show that.

No, *your* past behaviour doesn't show that. You just dumping policy 
proposals on a mailing list without discussing the idea first is probably one 
of the reasons why this paragraph is included, and I STRONGLY support it.

> There have been many policy proposals that didn't followed that process 
and they are actual policies. The PDP is a set of rules, strict rules of a 
process, not "rules and suggestions". We can't mix rules and suggestions in a 
formal PDP text.

Yes we can, we are not writing law.

Cheers,
Sander


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



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.




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


**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

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 


**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further no

Re: [ripe-list] New Draft RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP) document - for your review

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

And that’s also wrong. There are many “perceived” attributions to the Chairs 
with have never been accepted by the community and in law, this is called 
discrimination.

 

 

 

El 25/11/21 13:41, "ripe-list en nombre de Cynthia Revström via ripe-list" 
 escribió:

 

But they do have more influence than others, and as far I know, that is 
entirely intended.

 

As an example, they have the responsibility of making sure that task forces are 
created when needed, you can not just do that as a normal community participant.

 

-Cynthia

 

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:39 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list 
 wrote:

Chairing a meeting is not giving them different attributions in terms of policy 
development. We need someone to coordinate and steer the work, but not to 
actually decide or have more influence than other community participants.

 

 

El 25/11/21 13:36, "Cynthia Revström"  escribió:

 

Hi Jordi,

 

> neither RIPE chairs or WG chairs must be or have a different treatment vs the 
> rest of the community

I think it is pretty well known that this is false, the RIPE chair is treated 
differently as they chair the meetings and as far I know the RIPE chair can 
also invite someone to RIPE meetings/remove their ticket cost. (not entirely 
certain on the last part, sorry if I got it wrong)

 

-Cynthia

 

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:34 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list 
 wrote:

Hi Mirjam, all,

Firstly, I can't agree with how this update to the PDP is being managed. The 
PDP is updated by the PDP as a policy proposal and it should follow exactly the 
same process. Is not only because this is the way the other RIRs do, but 
because we already did that not long time ago: 
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-04

We can't approve a PDP change not following the PDP process, otherwise, we set 
a terrible precedent of an exception with will be an illegal act against our 
own laws (understanding the PDP as our law) and highly discriminatory (neither 
RIPE chairs or WG chairs must be or have a different treatment vs the rest of 
the community).

In addition to that, here are my observations:

1) We discussed this already a few times in the past. It is abnormal that the 
PDP is considered as a RIPE Chair "authored" document. Again, it is 
discriminatory and no sense. It is just one more document in our policy set, 
actually the one on top of all them, and all them belong to the community and 
are authored by the community.

2) Actually, related to that, there is something that I've already discussed 
with Hans Petter (when he was RIPE Chair), Marco (when he was the PDO) and 
other folks several times, but this is the opportunity to take an action, if we 
decide to update the PDP. Policies *are community documents*, they should not 
have the authors names. Authors work on that to voluntarily support the 
community. I understand that during the discussion the name is visible in the 
web pages for the policy proposal and then in the archives, etc., but they must 
not be part of the final policy text, unless we want to do like in IETF, where 
we have an ack section, to recognize all the discussion participants, not just 
the authors. So consequently, we should have some clear text about that in the 
PDP update,  and we must remove all those mentions in the actual documents 
(option 1). Otherwise, all the document should include the authors (option 2). 
Because it is discriminatory that a few documents have author names and not all 
them. Note that my personal preference is option 1.

3) I strongly disagree that we should have this text "This document deals 
solely with policy. Everything else, such as RIPE NCC business practices, 
procedures and operations is out of scope.". The first sentence is wrong, as 
the PDP, as demonstrated previously, also deals with PDP changes. The PDP is 
the only way the community has to deal with documents and reach consensus on 
them before being published. There are documents which aren't policy but also 
follow the PDP. The second part is a big mistake. The only way the community 
has to influence how the NCC implements policies, if something goes wrong, is 
the policy making process. Otherwise, the membership (which is a small fraction 
of the community) decides to ignore the community (ignoring policies), we are 
just lost. Yes, there is a similar text in the actual PDP, but it is just 
wrong, we should work to remove it.

4) The text about the "idea" is wrong and untrue. Past experience doesn't show 
that. There have been many policy proposals that didn't followed that process 
and they are actual policies. The PDP is a set of rules, strict rules of a 
process, not "rules and suggestions". We can't mix rules and suggestions in a 
formal PDP text.

5) I strongly disagree with the removal of the text that clarify what are 
"policies". We agreed

Re: [ripe-list] New Draft RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP) document - for your review

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

That’s my point, we are actually writing “our law”

 

 

El 25/11/21 13:39, "ripe-list en nombre de Cynthia Revström via ripe-list" 
 escribió:

 

But this is not law, it is a procedural document, and procedural documents can 
include suggestions even if national laws often don't.

 

The argument that it can't contain suggestions just because normal national 
laws often don't, is extremely silly.

 

-Cynthia

 

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:36 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
 wrote:

That’s my point, we are actually writing “our law”

 

 

 

Saludos,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 25/11/21 13:34, "Cynthia Revström"  escribió:

 

Yes but this is NOT law as Sander said, we are not writing a law here.

This is a procedural document in a community, not a law.

 

-Cynthia

 

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:30 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list 
 wrote:

Hi Sander,

Just count how many proposals have reached consensus even if they have not got 
a previous discussion in the list. Is a matter of numbers.

Law != suggestions, law must be strict and avoid as much as possible subjective 
interpretations.


El 25/11/21 13:17, "ripe-list en nombre de Sander Steffann" 
 escribió:

Jordi,

> 4) The text about the "idea" is wrong and untrue. Past experience doesn't 
show that.

No, *your* past behaviour doesn't show that. You just dumping policy 
proposals on a mailing list without discussing the idea first is probably one 
of the reasons why this paragraph is included, and I STRONGLY support it.

> There have been many policy proposals that didn't followed that process 
and they are actual policies. The PDP is a set of rules, strict rules of a 
process, not "rules and suggestions". We can't mix rules and suggestions in a 
formal PDP text.

Yes we can, we are not writing law.

Cheers,
Sander


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



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.




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


**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

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 



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be co

Re: [ripe-list] New Draft RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP) document - for your review

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Chairing a meeting is not giving them different attributions in terms of policy 
development. We need someone to coordinate and steer the work, but not to 
actually decide or have more influence than other community participants.

 

 

El 25/11/21 13:36, "Cynthia Revström"  escribió:

 

Hi Jordi,

 

> neither RIPE chairs or WG chairs must be or have a different treatment vs the 
> rest of the community

I think it is pretty well known that this is false, the RIPE chair is treated 
differently as they chair the meetings and as far I know the RIPE chair can 
also invite someone to RIPE meetings/remove their ticket cost. (not entirely 
certain on the last part, sorry if I got it wrong)

 

-Cynthia

 

On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:34 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list 
 wrote:

Hi Mirjam, all,

Firstly, I can't agree with how this update to the PDP is being managed. The 
PDP is updated by the PDP as a policy proposal and it should follow exactly the 
same process. Is not only because this is the way the other RIRs do, but 
because we already did that not long time ago: 
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-04

We can't approve a PDP change not following the PDP process, otherwise, we set 
a terrible precedent of an exception with will be an illegal act against our 
own laws (understanding the PDP as our law) and highly discriminatory (neither 
RIPE chairs or WG chairs must be or have a different treatment vs the rest of 
the community).

In addition to that, here are my observations:

1) We discussed this already a few times in the past. It is abnormal that the 
PDP is considered as a RIPE Chair "authored" document. Again, it is 
discriminatory and no sense. It is just one more document in our policy set, 
actually the one on top of all them, and all them belong to the community and 
are authored by the community.

2) Actually, related to that, there is something that I've already discussed 
with Hans Petter (when he was RIPE Chair), Marco (when he was the PDO) and 
other folks several times, but this is the opportunity to take an action, if we 
decide to update the PDP. Policies *are community documents*, they should not 
have the authors names. Authors work on that to voluntarily support the 
community. I understand that during the discussion the name is visible in the 
web pages for the policy proposal and then in the archives, etc., but they must 
not be part of the final policy text, unless we want to do like in IETF, where 
we have an ack section, to recognize all the discussion participants, not just 
the authors. So consequently, we should have some clear text about that in the 
PDP update,  and we must remove all those mentions in the actual documents 
(option 1). Otherwise, all the document should include the authors (option 2). 
Because it is discriminatory that a few documents have author names and not all 
them. Note that my personal preference is option 1.

3) I strongly disagree that we should have this text "This document deals 
solely with policy. Everything else, such as RIPE NCC business practices, 
procedures and operations is out of scope.". The first sentence is wrong, as 
the PDP, as demonstrated previously, also deals with PDP changes. The PDP is 
the only way the community has to deal with documents and reach consensus on 
them before being published. There are documents which aren't policy but also 
follow the PDP. The second part is a big mistake. The only way the community 
has to influence how the NCC implements policies, if something goes wrong, is 
the policy making process. Otherwise, the membership (which is a small fraction 
of the community) decides to ignore the community (ignoring policies), we are 
just lost. Yes, there is a similar text in the actual PDP, but it is just 
wrong, we should work to remove it.

4) The text about the "idea" is wrong and untrue. Past experience doesn't show 
that. There have been many policy proposals that didn't followed that process 
and they are actual policies. The PDP is a set of rules, strict rules of a 
process, not "rules and suggestions". We can't mix rules and suggestions in a 
formal PDP text.

5) I strongly disagree with the removal of the text that clarify what are 
"policies". We agreed long time ago that we should work on BCPs, guidelines, 
etc. If we remove that then those documents lose their umbrella. I will agree 
to reword it, but not removing it.

6) There is another big chunk of text that has been removed, and it is about 
the open/bottom-up transparent process. I understand that it has been reworded, 
but there are some keyworks that are now missing which are key.

7) "After preliminary discussion of the idea", is broken. Because it is not 
mandatory to have a preliminary "idea". We have discussed this already many 
times. There is no need for a discussion before a formal propo

Re: [ripe-list] New Draft RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP) document - for your review

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Sander,

Just count how many proposals have reached consensus even if they have not got 
a previous discussion in the list. Is a matter of numbers.

Law != suggestions, law must be strict and avoid as much as possible subjective 
interpretations.
 

El 25/11/21 13:17, "ripe-list en nombre de Sander Steffann" 
 escribió:

Jordi,

> 4) The text about the "idea" is wrong and untrue. Past experience doesn't 
show that.

No, *your* past behaviour doesn't show that. You just dumping policy 
proposals on a mailing list without discussing the idea first is probably one 
of the reasons why this paragraph is included, and I STRONGLY support it.

> There have been many policy proposals that didn't followed that process 
and they are actual policies. The PDP is a set of rules, strict rules of a 
process, not "rules and suggestions". We can't mix rules and suggestions in a 
formal PDP text.

Yes we can, we are not writing law.

Cheers,
Sander


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



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.




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 Draft RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP) document - for your review

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Mirjam, all,

Firstly, I can't agree with how this update to the PDP is being managed. The 
PDP is updated by the PDP as a policy proposal and it should follow exactly the 
same process. Is not only because this is the way the other RIRs do, but 
because we already did that not long time ago: 
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-04

We can't approve a PDP change not following the PDP process, otherwise, we set 
a terrible precedent of an exception with will be an illegal act against our 
own laws (understanding the PDP as our law) and highly discriminatory (neither 
RIPE chairs or WG chairs must be or have a different treatment vs the rest of 
the community).

In addition to that, here are my observations:

1) We discussed this already a few times in the past. It is abnormal that the 
PDP is considered as a RIPE Chair "authored" document. Again, it is 
discriminatory and no sense. It is just one more document in our policy set, 
actually the one on top of all them, and all them belong to the community and 
are authored by the community.

2) Actually, related to that, there is something that I've already discussed 
with Hans Petter (when he was RIPE Chair), Marco (when he was the PDO) and 
other folks several times, but this is the opportunity to take an action, if we 
decide to update the PDP. Policies *are community documents*, they should not 
have the authors names. Authors work on that to voluntarily support the 
community. I understand that during the discussion the name is visible in the 
web pages for the policy proposal and then in the archives, etc., but they must 
not be part of the final policy text, unless we want to do like in IETF, where 
we have an ack section, to recognize all the discussion participants, not just 
the authors. So consequently, we should have some clear text about that in the 
PDP update,  and we must remove all those mentions in the actual documents 
(option 1). Otherwise, all the document should include the authors (option 2). 
Because it is discriminatory that a few documents have author names and not all 
them. Note that my personal preference is option 1.

3) I strongly disagree that we should have this text "This document deals 
solely with policy. Everything else, such as RIPE NCC business practices, 
procedures and operations is out of scope.". The first sentence is wrong, as 
the PDP, as demonstrated previously, also deals with PDP changes. The PDP is 
the only way the community has to deal with documents and reach consensus on 
them before being published. There are documents which aren't policy but also 
follow the PDP. The second part is a big mistake. The only way the community 
has to influence how the NCC implements policies, if something goes wrong, is 
the policy making process. Otherwise, the membership (which is a small fraction 
of the community) decides to ignore the community (ignoring policies), we are 
just lost. Yes, there is a similar text in the actual PDP, but it is just 
wrong, we should work to remove it.

4) The text about the "idea" is wrong and untrue. Past experience doesn't show 
that. There have been many policy proposals that didn't followed that process 
and they are actual policies. The PDP is a set of rules, strict rules of a 
process, not "rules and suggestions". We can't mix rules and suggestions in a 
formal PDP text.

5) I strongly disagree with the removal of the text that clarify what are 
"policies". We agreed long time ago that we should work on BCPs, guidelines, 
etc. If we remove that then those documents lose their umbrella. I will agree 
to reword it, but not removing it.

6) There is another big chunk of text that has been removed, and it is about 
the open/bottom-up transparent process. I understand that it has been reworded, 
but there are some keyworks that are now missing which are key.

7) "After preliminary discussion of the idea", is broken. Because it is not 
mandatory to have a preliminary "idea". We have discussed this already many 
times. There is no need for a discussion before a formal proposal, neither the 
chairs have any discriminatory authority to reject a proposal, if it is in the 
scope of the WG. And in case it is not in scope of any WG, must come to the 
plenary (difficult to be in that case, but it must be clear).

8) Across the text you use "proposer" as this was the wording in the original 
PDP. I suggest that we have a foot note or similar alternative way to indicate 
the first time the term is used that the proposer is one or a set of authors, 
just for clarity. Not everybody is used to the PDP and if they read it, they 
should be able to quickly understand that author(s) and proposer(s) is the same.

9) Regarding "Clearly and concisely formulate the problem statement and the 
intended result", is not good, because sometime we need policies to improve and 
existing one, the problem statement then is not so obvious for all (not the 
same "degree" of understanding the need f

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Even if a transfer policy is adopted, *before* any transfer AFRINIC has the 
right to verify the resources are being used according to the policies, RSA, 
documentation/justification provided when it was allocated/assigned, etc., etc. 

 

If the resources don’t follow the rules, the RIR (not just in the case of 
AFRINIC) has the right to enforce (before the transfer) the rules or reclaim 
the resources.

 

Each RIR has sligtly different rules clearly, but in no case, a transfer policy 
shall be allowed to be used as a way to circumvent the existing rules of the 
origin RIR!

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 1/8/21 15:01, "Taiwo Oye"  escribió:

 

Thank you @andrew.

 

It is my (personal) view that AfriNIC board should exercise their powers and 
pass a transfer policy

- point 2

 

 

On Aug 1, 2021, at 13:38, Andrew Alston  wrote:

 

It is my (personal) view that AfriNIC board should exercise their powers and 
pass a transfer policy.

 

Let those who wish to run the risks of staying with AfriNIC through this 
situation do so - let those who choose not to accept the risk profile transfer 
out - problem solved.

 

It is entirely within the boards powers to pass emergency policy which the 
community can revoke at the next pdp should they wish to do so - and if AfriNIC 
has the support claimed by members of this list there is absolutely zero risk 
in this approach.

 

Furthermore - such an approach would also remove the possibility of other legal 
action which may be taken against them on grounds removed from the current 
legal situation



I remind everyone that AfriNIC has a duty to act in the interests of its 
members - and AfriNIC has repeatedly stated in the press - and has been echoed 
by various ISP associations that there is risk here - it should therefore stand 
that AfriNIC provide members with a way to mitigate said risk if it is within 
their powers to do so

 

Again - a personal view - and again - I explicitly will not comment on the 
merits or demerits of this case - since I believe that the legal system should 
run its course and be the final arbiter of what is correct in this situation.  
In fact I find the amount of legal posturing on this list to be nothing short 
of bizarre - let the courts do their work - but let members mitigate their 
risks as they see fit





Andrew  

 

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Taiwo Oye 
Sent: Sunday, August 1, 2021 3:00:32 PM
To: Paul Wollner 
Cc: arin-discuss ; secretariat ; 
Community Discuss ; apnic-talk 
; ripe-list ; Members Discuss 

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

 

Good day all, 

 

I think paul made some sense in his first statement (tho the statement has been 
watered down now).

 

If afrinic is in a financial fix or in a state where it is tending towards a 
financial situation where it can no longer perform its duties, it is only right 
to start weighing all viable options to keep the registry afloat. 

Paul made a suggestion - tho a bit aggressively - about the NRO coming to save 
the region. 

I will like the community to see this as “option 1”. 

 

Does any other community member have any better suggestion in the (not so 
likely) situation that afrinic does not have the financial capability to carry 
out its duties?

 

If so, please lay them out for discussion amongst the community members. 

 

If not, Option 1 remains the only alternative to cushion the effect of the 
financial breakdown. 

 

That being said. I think we should think in the direction of way forward and 
have a plan ready rather than crucifying Paul for being proactive. 




On Aug 1, 2021, at 11:01, Paul Wollner  wrote:

 

 

Hello community

 

I think I  misused the word “take over” to spike some unfortunate sentiments.

 

Let me try this again:

In the interest of internet continuity, another RIR should help AFRINIC (by 
staff or infrastructure), to perform it’s core registration service function 
for the time being, until all AFRINIC litigation has been sorted to avoid 
disruption to our African end users and businesses.

 

Regards

Paul

 

 

 

 On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 23:38:32 +0200 Paul Wollner 
 wrote 

 

Apologies for the duplicate post, but the initial posting was too large. 

 

The concerns expressed by TISPA, as well as other concerned parties and 
especially by AFRINIC's  own admission in the news outlet lexpress.mu, which is 
available at https://ibb.co/tmWCk0k, regarding the AFRINIC’s inability to keep 
providing its core registry functions due to its inability to meet its 
financial requirements.

 

I suggest that in order not hold end users, ISPs and any other business's 
hostage, for the interest of continue service of AFRINIC’s core registry 
service, we should urgently call for NRO fulfil their responsibility as well as 
commitment to the global internet to take over AFRINIC’s registration service 
for the time being, until litigation is settled some time lat

Re: [ripe-list] Three new ripe-documents published under RIPE Governance Category

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Mirjam, all,

I wonder when those documents reached consensus and have been approved by the 
community?

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 15/7/21 13:29, "ripe-list en nombre de Mirjam Kuehne" 
 escribió:

Dear colleagues,

As mentioned in my recent update on RIPE Labs, the following three
documents are now available in the RIPE Document Store:

A Guide for New RIPE Working Group Chairs (ripe-765)
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-765

Mailing List Guidelines for RIPE Working Group Chairs (ripe-764)
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-764

RIPE Meeting Programme Committee: Appointment, Roles and
Responsibilities (ripe-763) https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-763

You can find other documents related to RIPE Governance here:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/ripe-governance

Kind regards,
Mirjam Kühne






**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Hank,

 

I agree with those points, we had similar discussions in other RIRs.

 

Not being a lawyer, I believe that instead of “copyright”, we should use 
“intellectual property”, as copyright is one form of presenting that.

 

Regarding the law violation. It is not clear how that should be formulated, 
because, it is impossible that everyone knows the law of Netherlands and it may 
be even in simple things very different from your own country. In fact, if that 
happens, it will be a legal issue, which is always on top of any code of 
conduct that we want to set.

 

I understand that most of the CoC aspects, could be considered against law in 
many countries, and we want to make them “explicit”. However, for that specific 
point I’ve “confronted sentiments”.

 

In my opinion, if something violating law is posted which is not clearly 
described in all the other points of the CoC, it is up to the Dutch LEA/courts 
to decide and it is up to RIPE NCC to inform them about “their feeling that it 
may be the case”.

 

Let me go a bit further: This is also relevant to the email archives. They 
should reflect all what happens in the list, like a meeting recording, minutes, 
etc., uncensored. Deleting from email archives something that could be a law 
violation should be only done if the law ask for it.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 20/4/21 7:30, "ripe-list en nombre de Hank Nussbacher" 
 escribió:

 

On 19/04/2021 20:12, Randy Bush wrote:
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.
my naïve view is that, if the ncc is an organiser, then the coc MUST
apply.  
 
if i am asked to be on (or chair) a panel which has no under-represented
folk, i decline, making the reason very clear.
 
randy
 

Reviewing the CoC I have noticed a few items that maybe need to be included 
(not sure):

 

- violating someones copyright or trademark

- distributing malware with the intention of infecting participants

- reposting private emails without the express permission of the sender

- posting something that would violate the law in the Netherlands

- posting commercial/advertisement content

 

Probably each is open to debate.

 

Regards,

Hank

 

Caveat: The views expressed above are solely my own and do not express the 
views or opinions of my employer 



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Very good point.

 

I don’t agree with the “split”, I think it increases complexity instead of 
simplifying it, as I already mention, however if this is made in order to 
facilitate the work, etc., I will consent on that. That said, to be acceptable, 
I think we need to a couple of things:
Number sections/sub-sections (to facilitate reading/inputs and so we can make 
cross-references, if needed across documents).
Reach consensus in the documents as a “set”, not one by one, because I feel 
that some of the discussions, wording, etc., in one document can have important 
impact in the others.
 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 30/3/21 11:29, "diversity en nombre de Sasha Romijn" 
 escribió:

 

Hello Leo,

 

I’m fine with the current draft if the comment I made is addressed (and 
depending on how comments from others are integrated).

“Support” feels like a big word, because this document is functionally 
incomplete without the other documents. I know that splitting into parts is the 
process that has been decided on, so that’s not something we can easily change 
now.

 

Sasha



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

 

Dear RIPE Community,

 

I'd like to thank everyone who has already commented on this draft update to 
the Code of Conduct so far.  

 

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. Also, 
some people have commented but not stated if they support the daft as is, or 
would support the draft with a minor change. I've placed a question mark next 
to names where I'm not sure what a person's position is. It would be great if 
you could clarify your position.

 

Many thanks,

 

Leo Vegoda
On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF

 

Commenter
SupportComment or Delta
Eileen Gallagher
✓Add: acknowledgments of earlier work done by others when presenting new work
Add: thanking people for their contribution as an example of positive behaviour
Comment: RIPE NCC might want to incorporate the CoC into contracts with venues 
Randy Bush
✓Keep the CoC tight
Vesna Manojlovic
✓Add: definition of the CoC Team
Add: call to action
Nit: Add date and authors
Nit: Change “for more than quarter of a century” to “since 1989”
Nit: make the URL ripe.net/coc
Nit: Rename "Behaviour" title to "Inclusive Behaviour" or another alternative
Nit: "people protected" -> remove bullet points, make it a CSV line of text
Gert Doering
✓—
Maximilian Wilhelm
✓—
Daniel Karrenberg
✓Focus more on principles and make it even clearer that the lists are examples 
and not comprehensive
Do not give the PC a special role 
Nit: Change “national laws” to “laws”
Nit: ONly talk about roles and organisations in the community in general terms
Stated that the obligation to report crimes is very limited
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
?Nit: Number all sections
Rationale must balance inclusivity against freedom of speech and cultural 
differences
Include all ways of communicating over the Internet
Does not understand why the PC needs to be consulted
Does contracted workers include subcontractors?
Wants the RIPE NCC staff to always intermediate if a report is made to the 
police and understands that there could be liability if people know of an 
incident and do not report it
Add protection for those who do not speak English as a first language
Does not think "calling people names" is clear for non-native speakers
Rephrase “Deliberately outing private details about someone without their 
consent”
Rephrase “Pushing someone to drink or take drugs”
Add a prohibition against spam
Forbid using language a non-native speaker might misunderstand
Similarly, the CoC Team should accommodate cultural differences
Wants the process in the same document
Sasha Romijn
?Question about how the team would determine if an act should be reported to 
the police and a preference for that to be controlled by the subject of the act
Jim Reid
?Supports Sasha on police report issue
Sander Steffann
?Supports Sasha on police report issue
Gergana Petrova
?Clarification on making a police report
Echoes the question about the role of the PC (see above)
Rob Evans
?Trusted Contacts training gave him the understanding that there is no 
obligation to make police reports. Trusted Contacts are confidential contacts
Fearghas Mckay
?Confidentiality and control are important in helping people have the 
confidence to make a report
 

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

 

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



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information w

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Leo, all,

 

I can’t support the document at this stage, because the points I mention. 
Possibly they can be accommodated and then I will be happy to support.

 

To state it clearly: Note that my disagreement with the discrimination at the 
participation of the TF is no a blocking to my support position. On this 
regards I’m still unable to find the discussion of that participation in the 
minutes/mail archive, so that needs to be clarified. I will try to re-read all 
the mail archive today, not just because this, but also in case any of my 
objections is related to the TF discussions and I could have a different 
perspective or point to something else.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 29/3/21 10:32, "ripe-list en nombre de Leo Vegoda" 
 escribió:

 

Dear RIPE Community,

 

I'd like to thank everyone who has already commented on this draft update to 
the Code of Conduct so far.  

 

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. Also, 
some people have commented but not stated if they support the daft as is, or 
would support the draft with a minor change. I've placed a question mark next 
to names where I'm not sure what a person's position is. It would be great if 
you could clarify your position.

 

Many thanks,

 

Leo Vegoda
On behalf of the RIPE Code of Conduct TF

 

CommenterSupportComment or Delta
Eileen Gallagher✓Add: acknowledgments of earlier work done by others when 
presenting new workAdd: thanking people for their contribution as an example of 
positive behaviourComment: RIPE NCC might want to incorporate the CoC into 
contracts with venues 
Randy Bush✓Keep the CoC tight
Vesna Manojlovic✓Add: definition of the CoC TeamAdd: call to actionNit: Add 
date and authorsNit: Change “for more than quarter of a century” to “since 
1989”Nit: make the URL ripe.net/cocNit: Rename "Behaviour" title to "Inclusive 
Behaviour" or another alternativeNit: "people protected" -> remove bullet 
points, make it a CSV line of text
Gert Doering✓—
Maximilian Wilhelm✓—
Daniel Karrenberg✓Focus more on principles and make it even clearer that the 
lists are examples and not comprehensiveDo not give the PC a special role Nit: 
Change “national laws” to “laws”Nit: ONly talk about roles and organisations in 
the community in general termsStated that the obligation to report crimes is 
very limited
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ?Nit: Number all sectionsRationale must balance inclusivity 
against freedom of speech and cultural differencesInclude all ways of 
communicating over the InternetDoes not understand why the PC needs to be 
consultedDoes contracted workers include subcontractors?Wants the RIPE NCC 
staff to always intermediate if a report is made to the police and understands 
that there could be liability if people know of an incident and do not report 
itAdd protection for those who do not speak English as a first languageDoes not 
think "calling people names" is clear for non-native speakersRephrase 
“Deliberately outing private details about someone without their 
consent”Rephrase “Pushing someone to drink or take drugs”Add a prohibition 
against spamForbid using language a non-native speaker might 
misunderstandSimilarly, the CoC Team should accommodate cultural 
differencesWants the process in the same document
Sasha Romijn?Question about how the team would determine if an act should be 
reported to the police and a preference for that to be controlled by the 
subject of the act
Jim Reid?Supports Sasha on police report issue
Sander Steffann?Supports Sasha on police report issue
Gergana Petrova?Clarification on making a police reportEchoes the question 
about the role of the PC (see above)
Rob Evans?Trusted Contacts training gave him the understanding that there is no 
obligation to make police reports. Trusted Contacts are confidential contacts
Fearghas Mckay?Confidentiality and control are important in helping people have 
the confidence to make a report

 



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Common sense for me is on the other way around. A TF with 5 people is much 
better than just 4. Even 10 people, maybe not 25.

Common sense is to define up-front what is the allowed membership, not 
afterwards having a discussion about that and then making an arbitrary 
decision, because the original email on the call for the TF was non crystal 
clear.

Furthermore, it seems, it was not just the chairs decision?

It is interesting to see that, unless I missed it, there is nothing about that 
discussion in the minutes (I read this morning the emails in the list for 
September-October-November). So, if there was such discussion in the TF, then 
it was not minuted (so not so transparent).

So how to trust the rest of the minutes, if that's the case?

I recall also that the archive of the mailing list was open only once I asked 
for it. So the goal of transparency was not there from day 1.
 

El 26/3/21 17:33, "ripe-list en nombre de Mirjam Kuehne" 
 escribió:

Hi Alex,

On 26/03/2021 15:55, Alex de Joode wrote:
> On Fri, 26-03-2021 13h 38min, Mirjam Kuehne  wrote:
>
> 09 Nov 2020: TF Chair advises latecomer that TF is not empowered to
> expand its membership, explains the arrangements to be made for
> transparency, and encourages latecomer to contribute to the work
> of the
> TF by posting to the TF mailing list.
> 
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/2020-November/80.html
> 

>
> Thank Mirjam,
>
> I
> 
'm
> a bit curious about the word 'empowered'.
>
> Does that mean that a TF can only do what is explicitly allowed, and
> there is no room for 'common sense'/'filling in the blancs' ?
>
>

There is always room for common sense in RIPE. The request was discussed
by the TF and as a result, the TF communicated that the membership of
the TF had been decided and that it wouldn't make sense at that point to
add more members as the work was well underway. In addition to that the
TF took a number of steps to increase transparency and to make it easier
to contribute to the work of the TF.

Kind regards,
Mirjam









**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Mirjam,

The email sent to the list on sept. 8th, was crystal clear "*Please* contact us 
before 15 September 2020".

Your email doesn't say "if you don't tell us before 15th September, you will be 
excluded from the TF". And even something like that, will be surprising to me, 
but could be acceptable. If you have 25 volunteers, I will understand that, but 
if you have 4 members, it doesn't make any sense.

For whatever reasons I only followed that later on, when preparing for the 
RIPE81, but as said your email is not excluding anyone to participate *after* 
any date.


Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 26/3/21 13:38, "ripe-list en nombre de Mirjam Kuehne" 
 escribió:


Dear all,

Just to clarify the process we used to form the CoC TF: During the
plenary at RIPE 81 and in an email I sent to the ripe-list on 8
September 2020 I asked for volunteers.

Before the deadline specified in that email, four volunteers stepped
forward. Together with two RIPE NCC support staff, the TF was formed and
was announced to the ripe-list on 23 September 2020.

On 25 October 2020 Jordi contacted the TF and asked to be added. Please
find more details in the timeline below for reference.

The TF mail archives are public and all meetings are minuted and
published on the TF mailing list (linked from the TF page:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/code-of-conduct-task-force).

Kind regards,
Mirjam Kühne
RIPE Chair
==


08 Sep 2020: Open call for volunteers to serve on TF, transparently
setting deadline
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2020-September/001959.html

15 Sep 2020: Deadline for volunteers to come forward

17 Sep 20020: RIPE Chair thanks the four volunteers and charges them to
set about their work

18 Sep 2020: Code of Conduct Task Force sets to work
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/2020-September/00.html

23 Sep 2020: Announcing CoC TF to ripe-list
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/2020-October/66.html

25 Oct 2020: Request received to join TF
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/2020-October/66.html

06 Nov 2020: TF meets and considers latecomer's request

09 Nov 2020: TF Chair advises latecomer that TF is not empowered to
expand its membership, explains the arrangements to be made for
transparency, and encourages latecomer to contribute to the work of the
TF by posting to the TF mailing list.
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/2020-November/80.html







**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Tks Leo,

I was understanding there are formal minutes published in the TF web page, and 
could not find them. I will read thru all the emails then.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 26/3/21 13:30, "ripe-list en nombre de Leo Vegoda" 
 escribió:

Hi Jordi,

On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 2:50 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
 wrote:
>
> Hi Mirjam, all,
>
> I can't agree with that:
>
> 1) Inputs from the legal team, should be open and transparently presented 
to the community.
> 2) As with any other documents, policies, etc., Community should be able 
to provide any inputs that we believe necessary, and not just "general 
principles or specific questions".
>
> Do we have minutes from the CoC meetings and contributions from the legal 
team?

Yes, all discussion is very thoroughly minuted and the minutes are
shared on the mailing list, as I promised you back in November:

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/coc-tf/2020-November/80.html

Kind regards,

Leo




**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Nick,

> 1) Inputs from the legal team, should be open and transparently presented 
to the community.

Task forces, committees, etc have reporting structures which allow them 
room to do what they are tasked to do, and then report back.

There's no general principle which mandates that they need to report 
every single input, and doing so would slow down their work output to a 
crawl.

-> Agree, but that doesn't preclude to have that information open. I believe at 
some point it was mention that there are minutes available, I was not able to 
find them, so that's why I'm asking for.


> 2) As with any other documents, policies, etc., Community should be able 
to provide any inputs that we believe necessary, and not just "general 
principles or specific questions".

I don't believe any tf / committee has said that they don't want 
community input.  Most, or indeed all of them go out of their way to 
solicit this.

That's why we have mailing lists like, for example, diversity@.

-> Exactly, and that's what I wanted to ask for clarification. I may have been 
only the wording from Mirjam email which was not clear to me.

> I want to insist in asking what is the rational for excluding anyone from 
a TF,

Looking at this from a different point of view, you're asking whether 
people have the right to barge their way on to a task force or committee.

Could you point us to any TF structure or committee structure anywhere 
in the world which accepts this on a point of principle?

-> You are reversing the issue, in the wrong way. Any TF or committee can have 
rules of engagement or participation or whatever you want to call them *of 
course*. BUT those rules are explicit and clear since day one, not *after*. For 
example, we can say "this is the required expertise, or the maximum number of 
members (first in?), or a combination of those".

I don't think we have a RIPE document that say that one of the attributions of 
the chairs is to constitute committees or TFs in a *closed* way, decided "on 
the spot" and arbitrarily managed. If we have it, then can't say anymore we are 
an open community, because that's discriminatory.

What I've been asking for since I was denied participating in the CoC TF is 
very simple: what is the document that shows those rules. You don't think 
that's sensible to ask? Do you think "no response" is a sensible response?

If we don't have those rules set and openly published *before* the call for 
participants of the TF starts, then they may be changed across the duration of 
the TF. This is a clear sign of "arbitrarity", if I can say so in English. It 
is an untrustable situation, common in dictatorial regimes, not open 
communities. I don't think this is what we want in this community. Correct me 
if I'm wrong.

Nick




**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Mirjam, all,

I can't agree with that:

1) Inputs from the legal team, should be open and transparently presented to 
the community.
2) As with any other documents, policies, etc., Community should be able to 
provide any inputs that we believe necessary, and not just "general principles 
or specific questions".

Do we have minutes from the CoC meetings and contributions from the legal team?

In fact, in messages from Leo (9/11/2020) and Niall (10/11/2020), I was 
suggested to contribute to this work via the mailing list, so that's what we 
are doing (not just me). Discussing about documents is the way we always did in 
this community, and this discussion is not subjected to just "general 
principles or specific questions". Anyone that disagree with any aspect of a 
document can say so, and if it is not resolved, we just don't reach consensus.

Further to that, I want to insist in asking what is the rational for excluding 
anyone from a TF, without a predefined and community accepted rules for doing 
so. I insist that it is a discrimination according to my knowledge of Spanish 
and several English dictionaries (for example "unfairly treating a person or 
particular group of people differently from others"). Note that I'm making this 
question in a generic way. Maybe I missed a RIPE document that explains it. I 
don't recall having seen it before, I don't recall anyone has said publicly 
he/she was not allowed to participate in any TF before. If such document 
doesn't exist, and we want to have that possibility without constituting a 
discrimination, we must work on that. Yes, this is a different topic as the CoC 
work, you may want to open a new thread on that.

Now in a more specific situation, if the rejection of my participation in the 
CoC TF was a mistake, just say it. I don't need even a justification. Just 
recognize that it was a wrong decision or lacking backup from the RIPE 
documents and I will be happy and done with that. Otherwise, "silence" is not 
the way, in my opinion, and I will need to keep going asking for a rationale 
here and where necessary, because otherwise, we are showing to the world that 
we are not really and open and transparent community as we usually say.


Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 25/3/21 14:37, "ripe-list en nombre de Mirjam Kuehne" 
 escribió:

Dear all,

The Code of Conduct Task Force  frequently receives input from the RIPE
NCC’s legal team. You can be assured that any legal matters in the
document will be closely reviewed by Athina and her team.

I think it would be most helpful to the TF if you provide feedback on
the general principles of the document or any specific questions you
might have.

Kind regards,
Mirjam
RIPE Chair





**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Alex,

 

I believe you’re mixing things. This discussion is NOT related to having “a” or 
“b” in the TF. Trust me, it’s not related at all. Despite having been rejected 
from the TF, without any rationale, this discussion is about making sure that 
we have a coherent CoC and we can really enforce it, without any possible 
liability.

 

However, if you want to go to that point, when you setup a Task Force, in a 
so-called “open” and “inclusive” community, without previous and explicit rules 
about “who” can participate and “who can’t”, it is a discrimination and against 
law.

 
We don’t have such explicit rules in this community to allow the chairs to 
select some folks for a Task Force and not others.
I’ve asked where is the document that explains the basis for the selection (or 
rejection), the response was “silence” (moths since that and still no 
response). Another theater (as we say in Spain): “transparency”, and even more 
education. If you made a mistake or make a wrong decision, you say it, and 
problem solved, but not responding is really showing many things about your 
responsibility as a chair.
We could create such rules, if they’re based on something that doesn’t constate 
discrimination and that's always debatable, so be it. But we need to do that 
up-front, not “you don’t participate today, tomorrow we make the rules to 
explain why you haven’t been admitted in the club”.
It is pure theater, to call a group “open” and then don’t allows some folks to 
participate.
It is even worst that this happens in the creation of a Code of Conduct. How we 
can get bound to a set of rules if the rules have been initially created in a 
closed group?
 

Even in a private organization such as a bar or restaurant, you can decide to 
exclude someone to come in, HOWEVER for that you need to 1) Set the rules 
up-front (for example dressing code), 2) Ensure that those rules aren’t against 
the law.

 

So yes, it is discrimination. I’ve double checked this specific case with a 
lawyer and further to that, I’ve been involved in similar situations in the 
Spanish courts (even the Constitutional Court), against the Spanish government, 
and I won the cases, and law (or wrong decisions) were changed.

 

But the worst is that chairs are creating their own rules, not the first time 
it happens.

 

What is next? Someone can’t participate in meetings because he complains about 
chairs?

 

I’m sorry, but we have rules for how we take decisions in this community, for a 
good reason, otherwise, we all do whatever we want and we have no respect for 
anything.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 25/3/21 13:02, "ripe-list en nombre de Alex de Joode" 
 escribió:

 

​Hi Jordi,

 

I fail to see what 'crime' was committed by not including you in the TF (except 
you overloading my mailbox again).

 

There is no law against choosing one person and not choosing an other person 
-as long- as this is not based on pigmentation, sex, sexual orientation, 
religion etc. If the choice is made based on those selection criteria we call 
it discrimination and it *might* be against the law. So please explain how 'you 
not being included in the TF' constitutes discrimination?

 

​-- 

IDGARA | Alex de Joode | a...@idgara.nl | +31651108221 


On Thu, 25-03-2021 12h 22min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list 
 wrote:

I don't think this is the case. What happens is that if nobody reports (or the 
LEA don't discover) that it was not reported by someone that had the knowledge 
of it, nothing is going to happen against the "lack of reporting".

As said, not being a lawyer, the right thing here is to ensure that it is 
verified by the legal counsel, as well as the complete CoC, to ensure that we 
aren't trying to enforce something that may create problems at some point.



El 25/3/21 11:43, "ripe-list en nombre de Daniel Karrenberg" 
 escribió:



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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

I don't think this is the case. What happens is that if nobody reports (or the 
LEA don't discover) that it was not reported by someone that had the knowledge 
of it, nothing is going to happen against the "lack of reporting".

As said, not being a lawyer, the right thing here is to ensure that it is 
verified by the legal counsel, as well as the complete CoC, to ensure that we 
aren't trying to enforce something that may create problems at some point.
 
 

El 25/3/21 11:43, "ripe-list en nombre de Daniel Karrenberg" 
 escribió:



    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





**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Clearly, we are talking about "corner cases", but may be not so much as a 
murder. For example, sexual harassment (either in a mailing list, or in private 
emails after a mailing list message, or in a meeting), it is a very serious 
crime in many countries, again, not sure if it is the case in Netherlands.

(and note that in the community I'm aware of at least 3 sexual harassment 
cases, with different "degrees", so not so strange situation)

The fact that the Trusted Contacts are "confidential" in our own "scope" or 
"definition", may be not according to Dutch law. In many countries, the only 
ones that are *free* from reporting a crime to authorities (or to keep silence 
about them if interrogated), and up to certain extent only, are priest (in 
confession) and doctors in psychology. May be there are other cases. Again, 
this is why it will be good to understand the legal counsel perspective here.

If Rod receives a complain "in trust", and it is a crime, and the victim don't 
want to report it to LEA, it is Rod exclusive decision to do it or not. If 
doesn't do it, he may be liable if it is discovered later on (example a sexual 
harassment turns into a rape later on).

Clearly this is a very uncomfortable situation and I fully understand the need 
for the trusted contacts, but law is always on top of all that, we like it or 
not.

Further to that, if the CoC is applied to "x" because a victim accused "x" 
about any kind of violation, and "x" decides is not right, and turns that "x" 
goes into litigation for that, because even his honor has been put in doubt, it 
may happen that courts decide that the application of the CoC was wrong, and 
damaged "x" rights and it may even impose sanctions and even inseminations to 
RIPE NCC, because RIPE is not a "legal figure" right? And RIPE NCC is the legal 
organization hosting mailing lists, meetings (virtual and face-to-face), etc.

So, it is a very sensible issue, because any application of the CoC, must be 
clearly backed-up by law. We can't just decide "this is a bad behavior" in our 
opinion if the concerning jurisdiction is not backing-up it.

I think the complete CoC must be validaded by the legal counsel, and not just 
for corner cases. Taking actions against any community member for something 
that *even if the full community* believes is wrong, may not be legal.

Even a "club of members" can't set rules that aren't conforming to law.


El 25/3/21 1:38, "ripe-list en nombre de Randy Bush" 
 escribió:

> The reason I want to point this out, is to stress that people can
> contact the Trusted Contacts in complete confidence. We will listen to
> what you have to say, and in doing so there is no requirement for
> others to know what is being said to us.

and that is why you are *trusted* contacts.

i am sure, given the creative lot we are, we could come up with corner
cases involving murder, war crimes, etc.  but i don't think that's why
we're here, so let's not. :)

randy

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




**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

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.

Why Netherlands? Because the RIPE activities, mail exploders, etc., etc., are 
hosted by RIPE NCC, which is a Dutch organization, so bound to Dutch laws.

So, in the scope of RIPE, if a victim or somebody else, has knowledge of such 
illegal activity and they decide not to report it, they may be liable but can't 
be prosecuted (different countries, maybe every outside EU, etc.). However, if 
the RIPE NCC has knowledge of that (simply because "the thing" happens in a 
meeting or mailing list, and the staff is reading it, or somebody, including 
the CoC Team informs the staff, etc.), then it must be reported. Ideally the 
victim should be encouraged to report it directly, but there is no way for the 
RIPE NCC to ignore it.

In more and more countries, even if victims deny reporting, or decide not to 
speak with the police about the happening (for example in cases of family 
violence), others have the obligation to report and the police/courts must 
prosecute it.

Obviously, this must be checked by the NCC counsel to make sure that we are 
in-sync with applicable laws.

Also, if whatever is happening in a meeting, not in a mailing list, all this 
may depend on the country hosting the meeting, but RIPE NCC, as organizer, is 
probably also liable in case of not reporting.
 
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 24/3/21 16:41, "ripe-list en nombre de Gergana Petrova" 
 escribió:

Hi all,

Firstly, thank you to all who worked on this. It looks good to me.

In reply to Sander and Sasha: currently the CoC says the reporting 
party, and not the CoC Team, is responsible, if they wish, to make a 
report to the relevant authorities. It also says the CoC could do so, if 
they think it is reasonable. If the authorities cannot do anything with 
this report without a victim (this is the case in some (most?) 
jurisdictions), then it is up to the authorities to handle this further 
- they could choose to contact the victim etc. It's out of our hands, so 
why debate it? Also, I think a CoC cannot preclude a party (whether it 
is a victim or not) from filing a report with the authorities. It just 
doesn't have that power.

Lastly, I second other people on this list's confusion about why the PC 
should have anything to do with the approval/applicability of the CoC, 
in events where there is a PC. Why would they want to have this 
responsibility? As far as I know it is not currently in any of their 
Charters. I'd be curious to hear what they think about this. I support 
other's suggestion to leave that part out.

Cheers,
Gergana

On 24/03/2021 15:18, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Hi Sasha,
> 
> On Wed, 2021-03-24 at 14:09 +0100, Sasha Romijn wrote:
>> I strongly feel that it should be up to the person who was harmed by
>> an act whether or not to involve police or other authorities.
> 
> Absolutely
> Sander
> 




**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Leo, all,

How come we can pretend that the RIPE community is open, inclusive, 
transparent, etc., if when we do this kind of work, we don't allow volunteer 
participants to join? How come we can have a CoC that must be respected by all 
if since day one on the work for this, somebody that volunteered has been 
excluded?

Let me explain, because only the chairs and the CoC TF knows the context of 
this up to now.

On October 26th I asked to join the mailing list and the CoC TF. I got a 
response on 9th November. In my request, I explained that I've made similar 
work in other RIRs (in that case via policy proposals, still under discussion), 
and I was during around 12 years the Sergeant-at-arms of the IETF (RFC3005), so 
clearly, I've some experience on this work.

In the response I was told that the Chairs Team decided about the membership 
and the CoC TF is not "empowered" to expand its own membership.

So, in summary, we can't enforce a CoC that has been generated in a 
non-inclusive and in fact discriminatory way.

There was not any information, when the Task Force was created about "rules of 
participation", "timing" or anything similar, and of course, there is NOTHING 
in our existing rules, documents, etc., that provides chair or Task Force 
members the right to EXCLUDE and DISCRIMINATE anyone. I've asked several times 
to the CoC TF and the chairs about that, and the response, as it has been in 
other topics such as the violation of the PDP has been "silence".

In Spanish we call this a "theater" or "mummery", I'm not sure if that 
expression makes sense in English. We continuously talk about openness, 
transparency and so on, but in reality, we have the chairs that do whatever 
they want, without respecting rules (or actually, creating their own rules) and 
ignoring volunteer participants. This is the way we want to encourage 
participation for long-term participants? How come newcomers will trust that. 
Let's be serious.

So, is this about getting only "friends" in a TF? How come we can pretend to be 
inclusive?

I don't know in other countries, but in Spain, if you exclude someone from a 
group or "club", without a clear previous explanation and engagement rules, 
which of course, can't be against law, it is called a discrimination, and it is 
an illegal act.

Besides that, which clearly should have a public and a clear explanation 
provided (documents that authorize to exclude volunteers from a TF, documents 
that allow chairs to ignore and don't publish policy proposals, etc.), I've the 
following points.

0) Generic. I think every section/sub-section must be numbered, it helps to 
follow the document, provide inputs, etc.

1) Rationale. I think it must be made explicit not only inclusivity, but also a 
right balance with freedom of expression, openness, transparency and respect to 
each participant language barriers and cultural differences.

2) Scope. The mailing list have the "forums" as an alternative way to 
participate. I will not call that a messaging or chat. Maybe you should add a 
bullet to cover any "communication app or web service". That will cover, I 
think any way to communicate. Maybe with that wording is no longer necessary to 
use "messaging or chat" but it is still helpful spell it out.

3) Scope. I don't understand why the PC needs to be consulted. Anything related 
to the RIPE community must support the same CoC. Otherwise, we need to define 
an AUP for the mailings list CoC for "a", CoC for "b", etc. If the goal is to 
be generic for anything related to the community, this doesn't make sense to me.

4) People. When you say "contracted workers", is that including 
"subcontractors" or need to be spelled out?

5) CoC and National Law. "The CoC Team or RIPE NCC staff may relay the report 
or make their own if necessary" I don't think this is a matter for the CoC 
Team, instead the CoC Team must report those cases to the RIPE NCC staff, and 
the RIPE NCC, must report to authorities. Otherwise, if the NCC has knowledge 
of a possible illegal activity, is acting as against the law and acting as an 
abettor and it may have some liability. If an individual knowing about an 
illegal activity doesn't report it, it is his/her own problem, but in the case 
of an organization, it is a problem for all the involved "members", board, 
staff, etc.

6) Unacceptable. We are missing language discrimination. We can't allow that 
non-native speakers have difficulties to understand what is being discussed or 
said, because, we have seen that already in several occasions, "presumed jokes 
or jargon" are frequently used as attacks to non-native speakers.

7) Unacceptable. I don't think "calling people names" is clear for non-native 
speakers. Is that not include in "insulting"? If telling someone "fat" is 
within your understanding of "calling people names", it is the same as 
insulting. In my opinion, having a CoC that uses a non-inclusive language, it 
is a very bad sign of what we want to en

Re: [ripe-list] [routing-wg] Call for Presentations - RIPE 82

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

I've moved this to the plenary list, because I think it deserves some more 
ample discussion.

I'm with Job here.

In my opinion pre-recorded material must be fine if the presenter is also 
available for Q&A. We need to take advantage of time and available resources in 
all the meetings.

In fact, my question here is why those decisions are taken by the WG chairs? It 
must be a community decision!

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 20/3/21 14:17, "routing-wg en nombre de Mirjam Kuehne" 
 escribió:

Hi all,

The topic of pre-recorded presentations was discussed at the RIPE WG
chairs meeting after RIPE 81. Many people on the call felt that while
there might be good reasons, this should be the exception as it doesn’t
allow for the interaction we would like to see at RIPE Meetings. 

Some WG chairs are considering to make some (possibly pre-recorded)
presentations available prior to the RIPE meeting to allow for more
discussion time at the meeting itself. Watching pre-recorded talks live
wasn’t seen as the best use of RIPE meeting time.

Kind regards,
Mirjam





**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE WG Chairs Selection and Terms

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Randy,

I don't agree with this rationale, as in all the other RIRs is the same. The 
ONLY difference is that here we have an explicit different name for the 
organization (RIPE NCC) and the community (RIPE).

But this is the same in *all* the other RIRs. In fact, the "lack" of a 
different name sometimes create confusions in other RIRs.

Sometimes I need to say "LACNIC organization" and "LANIC community" explicitly 
to differentiate both. You can replace LACNIC here by APNIC, AFRINIC or ARIN 
(even if in this case it is a bit different because historical reasons, AC 
instead of co-chairs, etc.).

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 12/2/21 17:43, "ripe-list en nombre de Randy Bush" 
 escribió:

jordi,

in this region, as opposed to the other regions, the community and the
bureaucracy are sorta separate, ripe and the ncc.  the community is
composed of us funny monkeys.  there will be inconsistencies.  it's a
feature, not a bug.  get over it.

randy




**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE WG Chairs Selection and Terms

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Problem Statement:

RIPE PDP follows a consensus bottom-up approach. The consensus is judged by WG 
chairs, and in case of discrepancies, there is an appeal process via the WGCC.

However, each WG has a different way to choose the WG chairs, despite that this 
has a clear influence in the PDP and Appeal process and it doesn't make sense 
that different WG's contributing to the PDP have different behavior.

Further to that, the PDP doesn't have a direct relation with selection of the 
WG chairs, which again, doesn't look as a rational approach and generates 
inconsistencies.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 12/2/21 16:43, "ripe-list en nombre de Jim Reid" 
 escribió:



> On 12 Feb 2021, at 13:54, Carlos Friaças  wrote:
> 
>> WGs should be left to decide for themselves what works best for them. 
Sometimes, that?ll mean term limits. Sometimes it won?t.
> 
> I can understand that. However, that impacts the "WG Chair Collective”.

[Citation needed.] AFAICT most of the WGCC have been there for < 5-6 years. 
Off the top of my head only 4 or 5 out of 25+ have been around for over 10 
years. That doesn’t seem all that stale to me. Not that the WGCC does anything 
particularly useful or influential. If you can bear the tedium, read the 
minutes of their meetings.

>> Not all WGs are the same. And for a few of them, continuity will be far 
more important than other considerations.
> 
> I have recently been told about the "a team of one" concept...

[Citation needed.] What has the WG(s) in question said or done about that?

>> There should of course be a healthy replacement of WG leadership: enough 
to ensure things don?t get stale
> 
> Depends on "things". In some cases stale is certainly a "feature".

[Citation needed.] What have you or the rest of the WG done about that? Has 
the WG put forward new candidates? Did you or others who share your view 
volunteer?

> Not everybody plays by "knowing when to step down"...


[Citation needed.] Have you ever suggested to someone they've been around 
for too long and should step down? What was their response? Did you have those 
conversations with the WG’s other co-chairs (or the RIPE Chair)? What was their 
response?

Saying "Not everybody plays by knowing when to step down” is all very well. 
It would help a lot if could you please cite actual examples instead of vague 
perceptions.

Let’s have a clear understanding of the problem statement before deciding 
the solutions. 



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

> 
>> 2 or 3 terms, plus a "freeze period" (1 term? 1 year?) to avoid
>> cases where a chair "jumps" to another WG.
> 
> I would completely support this if there weren't already problems in 
> getting enough people to take on the extra workload of becoming a WG
> chair.
> 

It could also be the other way round. People might be discouraged to run
against the long-time chairs.


 Exactly, that's was my point, it looks that I was not able to find the 
best wording. I've seen that in other organizations, not just here.

1) You ask for volunteers to replace "existing co-chair a"
2) There are 1-2 volunteers
3) "existing co-chair a" say, I will also volunteer to continue
4) There are comments like "existing co-chair a" has been there for long time, 
he knows the job ...
5) the 1-2 volunteers then drop-out.

May be the recommendation should be "2 terms maximum, 2 years each, then 1 year 
minimum stop, unless there are no other volunteers to fill the vacancy".





**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

I'm convinced that if you allow infinite terms, most of the people in the WG, 
will support the same existing folks. I did, now I realize it was a wrong 
decision in some case.

In Spanish we have a said "the bad known is better than the good to know" (not 
sure if the translation is correct, or there is an alternative in English) - 
and I followed that advice.

I think it is wrong that the PDP has nothing to say with the selection of the 
chairs.

The PDP is about policy making. They chairs are responsible of determining the 
consensus. No sense that it is not relevant.

Responding to Sander/Nigel to make it a single email:

1) Basically, it is the same people speaking up about any policy proposal in 
any WG, of course many be not 100% coincidence, but a very high %. It would be 
a good analysis even if I'm mistaken, for the chairs-team to expose. It means 
there is no sense to discuss policy in different WGs, it means a small set of 
the community is interested. It means that people that may be interested in 
discussing people is lost because it forces them to participate in different 
WGs. There are many takes on this.

2) Some people may be willing to serve, of course they may prefer a specific 
WG, so then having 2 WG chairs instead of 3 will not help. But some others are 
willing to server in any WG (or a subset of them).

3) In all the RIRs "all" the policies are run by the community, no matter is 
the address policy or something else. I'm not sure if Sander was referring to 
ARIN. It is true that in that case, as it was commented a few weeks ago in the 
list, ARIN did a "gift" to the community accepting that the community runs the 
PDP and anyway, this is done via the AC, which is selected by membership ... I 
know I'm writing it in a very simple way, but basically is that. And this is a 
completely different model than the other 4 RIRs. In my personal opinion a 
broken model because the community lose the control of the proposals very early 
in the process. 

4) People experience in a job is very good, but up to a certain point. 
Afterwards, they may be bored, pay less attention, and become "kings". This is 
happening. They are taking "usual practices" (from them) as rules of the PDP.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 10/2/21 16:01, "ripe-list en nombre de Gert Doering" 
 escribió:

Hi,

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 03:57:44PM +0100, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote:
> As also Sander pointed out - there is a process in place for WG chairs 
> rotation and if a chair is not doing her/his job properly - the WG will 
> most probably make sure that the chair rotation happens ;)

Also, it should be pointed out that the PDP has no authority on
WG chair rotation or selection.

Gert Doering
-- creaky chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael 
Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Nigel,

I've the feeling that in part, the lack of volunteers is due to the fact that 
existing ones can continue in perpetuity.

Also the details that we have in some cases 3 WG chairs and that means 1 less 
chair available for another WG. Note that I think that, considering that in 
other RIRs, there is a "single" WG for what it really is more important (PDP) 
and they are able to cope with the workload, this could also be the same here.

May be a model where we have a single "policy WG" (all the policies discussed 
in the same list) and the other WG for non-policy discussions.

If we compare the "actual" participants in policy discussions, among all the 
WGs, I think basically is the same set of 20 people. I think that tells a lot!

In other RIRs, all the policy proposals are managed in a single "main" PDP WG.

I've policy proposals under discussion in several RIRs, that precisely ask for 
2 years terms, maximum 2 consecutive terms and then a minimim of 1-year "rest".


El 10/2/21 13:32, "ripe-list en nombre de Nigel Titley" 
 escribió:



On 10/02/2021 12:27, Carlos Friaças via ripe-list wrote:

> 2 or 3 terms, plus a "freeze period" (1 term? 1 year?) to avoid cases
> where a chair "jumps" to another WG.

I would completely support this if there weren't already problems in
getting enough people to take on the extra workload of becoming a WG chair.

Nigel




**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Working Group Chair Collective Meeting Summary

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Yesterday I avoided responding to the list and responded only to Leo, as I did 
to other emails, but I think that's wrong.

We have the list to discuss about any relevant topic, and should not refrain 
despite of provocations, otherwise, the list becomes useless.

So here is it:

Fully agree, your text is precise. I forgot that not everybody in the list 
is participating ... Is like in the IETF, you are "a member" just by 
subscribing.

Tks!

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet



El 9/2/21 16:29, "Leo Vegoda"  escribió:

On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 5:56 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list
 wrote:

[...]

> To be part of this community you just need to participate.

No. To be a member of this community you only need to be present. That
presence only requires joining a mailing list so that a person can
choose to observe or participate. Posting to mailing lists is not a
requirement.

Regards,

Leo



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

[ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi all,

Yesterday I should have reacted in a different way, ignoring the provocations, 
so I want to ask excuses for that.

I think we (all) in those situations must privately ask the chairs to enforce 
he AUP and call to the order to the authors of inappropriate postings.

I need to make clear that I still believe (not just this time) it is wrong to 
issue any subtle "warning" (or whatever you want to call it) to participants in 
any discussion. We, as it can't be other way, can disagree if a proposal, idea, 
problem statement, solution, is good or bad; that's it and that's what the 
discussion should be about.

We are all free to ignore/delete emails from anyone if we believe that he/she 
is sending too many emails, but those emails, in general, except in clear cases 
that we all remember for spam, publicity of electoral candidates, etc., need to 
be allowed without restriction, because people are discussing about something 
that is in the scope of the list (apply this to any WG list as well).

If we believe that something is out of the scope, we should call the chairs to 
tell to the poster, but not do ourselves and even less, do what I did: 
responding to them.

If we look into previous discussions, same people that attacked me yesterday 
has sent (many times) more than "n" emails. So, if we want to define that, 
let's have it in the PDP or AUP, so it applies to everybody in the same way.

My response to their provocation is only upsetting more people from the 
community against my proposals or ideas, so I'm helping them to achieve what 
they wanted: to ruin the discussion.

Is not an excuse, but you also need to understand that this is not a 
consequence of a few minutes of "bad energy" from my side, but also a cumulus 
of private emails (sometimes from the same people that exposed themselves in 
the list), and attacks in different lists (often from the same people as well), 
such as mentions to the "Spanish Inquisition", among others. I tend to not 
overreact to those, even ignore them, or answer politely, but it seems that I 
should instead, report every single case to the chairs and avoid forming "dark 
clouds" and then having "storms".

I'm not alone on this (and I got a couple of people writing me about that this 
time). We discussed long time ago, I think it was in the Diversity TF, how 
people take advantage of better knowledge of English to abuse and attack 
non-native speaker ones (or people that is not so fluent).

We have mention about the lack of participation. Those subtle attacks 
definitively don't help to improve that, on the other way around, some people 
get scared, overreact, or go away.

It is even more sad that some of those provocations come from people that are 
(or have been) chairs of WGs and I think they must be exemplary. It looks like 
some of them believe they are kings. Maybe one more thing to change in the PDP 
is a maximum number of terms to avoid this. I think also sanctions of the AUP 
should be stricter in those cases and this shows that also we are missing in 
the PDP a procedure for recalling chairs. For those that aren’t aware, this 
just happened in AFRINIC (a Recall Committee has decided that both cochairs are 
recalled with immediate effect, in short because they violated the PDP and took 
decisions or attributions beyond what is set in the PDP).

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] %1-JORDI-EMAIL-EXCEEDED

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Common sense and education for me is to respond to emails that are sent to me.

I've the same right to respond to what I consider is a coercion, that you to 
insist on that. Who is first the egg or the chicken?

So, if you don't want more emails on this subject, just stop it, then I will 
not need to reply

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 9/2/21 15:21, "ripe-list en nombre de Peter Koch" 
 escribió:

Jordi,

On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 03:15:33PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
ripe-list wrote:

> I missed that in the PDP, where it is mention?

you might then have missed the "common sense" part mentioned earlier in
this threead.  I respectfully suggest you do follow the advice and reduce
the cadence of your contributions.

-Peter




**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] %1-JORDI-EMAIL-EXCEEDED

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Job,

I missed that in the PDP, where it is mention?

I'm not sure if I should take it as a joke or one more subtle 
coercion/harassment.

All are free to reply to any community list as much as we believe. You may 
disagree, but for me it is much easier to follow topics and discussions in 
short emails instead of waiting the full day and responding in a single email 
to all the emails of the day. Does that make sense?
 
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 9/2/21 15:11, "ripe-list en nombre de Job Snijders" 
 escribió:

Dear JORDI,

You have exceeded the commonly accepted daily quota of 5 emails.

Please allow others time to contemplate all the messages posted to the
list, and formulate responses. You are not the only subscriber.

There is no need for you to fill up this mailing list as fast as you can
write messages. Please come back at a later time.

Kind regards,

Job




**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] repeated and continued PDP violation - WG chairs delaying or denying proposal publication - new policy proposal "Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure"

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Niall,

 

When I sent the 1st version of the proposal, with the arbiters, the discussion 
with the PO brought that issue.

 

I removed it from the policy proposal text, but I still believe that it could 
be possible that the RIPE community accepts the same group of people (arbiters) 
even if they are chosen by the RIPE NCC board.

 

It is a matter of small modifications in the relevant documents and asking the 
existing arbiters (or chosen in the future) if they are also happy or not to be 
chosen in the appeal panel.

 

I mean, no need to serve as an arbiter for the RIPE NCC and be obligated to 
serve as an appeal panel member, and no harm is done to the existing arbiters 
panel.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 9/2/21 14:58, "ripe-list en nombre de Niall O'Reilly" 
 escribió:

 

Andy, everybody,

On 7 Feb 2021, at 21:53, Andy Davidson wrote:

On 7 Feb 2021, at 13:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list ripe-list@ripe.net 
wrote:

("Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure”)

Hi, Jordi, all

On your policy proposal: Is this something the Arbiters [0] could do well?

Andy

[0] http://ripe.net/about-us/legal/arbitration/list-of-arbiters

I am certain that the Arbiters could do this well.
Formally there currently seem to be certain obstacles.

1.The Arbiters are appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board.

2.The mandate which the current Arbiters have accepted does not include
a role in the Appeals Procedure of the RIPE PDP.

The RIPE Chair Team considers the first of these a sensitive point,
in view of discussion on the RIPE List last May, which I am sure
that many of you will recall.

Recent advice from the RIPE NCC cites ripe-691:

"The arbitration procedure is available for the settlement of disputes and for 
the evaluation of requests for Internet number resources by the RIPE NCC."

and more specifically:

"The arbiters are responsible for the settlement of disputes:

Between Members and the RIPE NCC regarding decisions of the Executive Board or 
the Management Team with respect to the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement, 
including RIPE NCC procedures and implementation of the RIPE Policies"

In preparing a soon-to-appear RIPE document, I have learned that
the idea of enlisting the Arbiters in the PDP Appeals Procedure
was presented at RIPE44, but seems to have been abandoned by the
time of RIPE55, when a full proposal for this procedure was
presented, later to be published in ripe-428.

Best regards,
Niall

—

References:

—



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Working Group Chair Collective Meeting Summary

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

I'm perfectly aware of the difference between RIPE NCC and RIPE. Unfortunately, 
is not that well understood in the other RIRs.

I think even if my wording was not perfect, it was clear to be understood:

Members of RIPE NCC (and other RIRs), are also part of the RIPE community. To 
be part of this community you just need to participate. Decision of the RIPE 
community, in terms of policy making, affect the members of RIPE NCC and all 
the other RIRs. However, most of the RIPE NCC (and other RIRs members) do not 
consider "part of their job" to participate in the policy making process of 
RIPE (and other RIRs).

And to respond on the other part: Believe me, trying to coerce or harass me 
will not work, on the other way around.



El 9/2/21 14:30, "ripe-list en nombre de Jim Reid"  escribió:



> On 9 Feb 2021, at 11:33, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list 
 wrote:
> 
> it may seem that ARIN and RIPE have more active participation, but if you 
look at it as % of membership, we are actually "worst" than other RIRs!

RIPE != RIPE NCC. RIPE doesn’t have a membership. And it’s not an RIR.

You’re right that participation levels are low but there is no practical 
way to improve that. If there was, it would have been done. We can’t force 
people to post to the lists or come to meetings or submit policy proposals. 
This is a much, much wider problem in society. Countries can’t even get enough 
of their citizens to vote in elections.

> A few weeks ago, I was already considering to send a new policy proposal 
to make some other changes in the PDP. I will start working on that

I think you need to pause for a few months and then think *very* carefully 
before proceeding Jordi. You also need to pay attention to the advice that you 
appear to have previously ignored: for instance the need for clear problem 
statements. You seem to think you have given a clear problem statement(s). 
Nobody else does.





**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] consensus defintions

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Jim,

I know very well RFC7282 and quoting a piece of it doesn't help.

Only a complete read and understand of the document is useful.


Otherwise, I can refute your quote with another quote from the same document, 
that shows that objections can still allow consensus:

" If the chair of a working group
   determines that a technical issue brought forward by an objector has
   been truly considered by the working group, and the working group has
   made an informed decision that the objection has been answered or is
   not enough of a technical problem to prevent moving forward, the
   chair can declare that there is rough consensus to go forward, the
   objection notwithstanding."
 

We can endless discuss about that, I don't think it will help.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 9/2/21 14:23, "ripe-list en nombre de Jim Reid"  escribió:



    > On 9 Feb 2021, at 12:49, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list 
 wrote:
> 
> Even if only me see those problems (which again is not the case, 
according to WGCC summary), still there is a chance that with the discussion of 
the proposal others support it and we can find a point where objections are 
invalid. This is what consensus mean.

It does not mean that. You are wrong. Please read RFC7282. I quote: 
"Consensus is when everyone is sufficiently satisfied with the chosen solution, 
such that they no longer have specific objections to it.”

Everyone is not sufficiently satisfied with your proposal(s) - QED - so by 
definition there cannot be a consensus for them.





**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Working Group Chair Collective Meeting Summary

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Common understanding is completely subjective. In this specific case there is a 
very clear problem (recognized by the documents already sent today by Mirjam), 
which is no formal definition who must self-recuse. Not to mention the others 
that I've mention.

Even if only me see those problems (which again is not the case, according to 
WGCC summary), still there is a chance that with the discussion of the proposal 
others support it and we can find a point where objections are invalid. This is 
what consensus mean.

We all know that "objectors" usually "speak up more and louder". Most of the 
people that agree, tend to stay silent. It is very unfortunate, but is the way 
it is.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 9/2/21 13:39, "Gert Doering"  escribió:

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 01:31:02PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
ripe-list wrote:
> Then, no doubts, never any of my proposals (including the one sent to the 
list a couple of days ago), has lacked a clear problem statement.

Well, you missed the part about "common understanding about the problem
statement *before* hitting people with a wall of text".

And no, as you can see from the reactions, what might be clear to you
is far from clear to the receivers.

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael 
Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Working Group Chair Collective Meeting Summary

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Then, no doubts, never any of my proposals (including the one sent to the list 
a couple of days ago), has lacked a clear problem statement.

The problem is another one: different folks may agree/disagree that it is 
something that we need to resolve or not (independently of how we can resolve 
that).

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 9/2/21 13:17, "ripe-list en nombre de Gert Doering" 
 escribió:

hi,

On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 12:33:18PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
ripe-list wrote:
> 2) Not always we have "problem" (point 4, 1st p.) and thus it means a 
problem statement can be acceptable for some folks and not others, so clearly 
this must not be in the hands of a few (like WG chairs), but part of the 
consensus. For example, sometimes (2018-04 is a good example of that), we are 
adopting policy changes, or even PDP changes, because there is a need to 
improve the clarify of the text and avoid different interpretations, which can 
be a very bad thing.

"there is a need to improve" is a very clear problem statement :-)

A problem *statement* does not have to be "LIRs are starving!", but it
defines whatever it is that is to be addressed by a policy proposal.

For policy proposals to progress in a meaningful way, there needs to be
some sort of common understanding on the "problem statement" aka "what is
it that we are going to improve here, and why?" *before* a full-blown
new policy text falls from the sky.

If this is missing, usually people do not react in the most open and
welcoming way to "hey, I have a new wall of text here!" ambush proposals.

(A problem statement does not have to be "we're going to improve the
world" class - it can be just "I, speaking for my LIR, have seen problems
with , and I think it can be improved by doing " - which is
a very clear statement on *why* things are proposed.  Then the community
can start discussing the *how* - but "why?" needs to come first)

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael 
Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] a proposal to change the PDP

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Mirjam, all,

With all the respect "come on!".

1st clarification: I've not doubted about the work of the policy officer, I 
think I made clear that they did their job very well and I defended that it is 
important that they (and the relevant WG chairs) provide inputs since day one 
and it means that the published version of the proposal is cleaner, may already 
resolve some probably issues, etc., etc. I clearly stated that this is the way 
done in all the RIRs since many years ago.

2nd clarification: There is no lack of problem statement. In fact, the 
documents that you sent to the list DEMONSTRATE IT. You made observations about 
the lack of clarity in the self-recusation. My proposal not only resolves that, 
but also ensures that someone could be recused by the appellant, which is an 
obvious and very clear problem. And in addition to that, it is clear that 
having the same "group of people" (WGCC) being the Appeal Committee, instead of 
an independent set of people, IT IS A BIG PROBLEM.

3rd clarification: Even if it was true that there is not a clear problem 
statement, can you tell me what exact text of the PDP allows the chairs to 
delay or deny the publication of a proposal? Otherwise, I MUST sustain my point 
here, there is persistent violation of the PDP until my proposal is formally 
published.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 9/2/21 12:06, "ripe-list en nombre de Mirjam Kuehne" 
 escribió:


Dear colleagues,

Listening to the discussion and without going into detail about the
proposal Jordi sent to the list, I would like to clarify a few things
about the process.

After Jordi sent his policy proposal to the RIPE NCC on 5 October 2020,
the Policy Officer and the RIPE Chair Team worked extensively with the
proposer on the content and language of the proposal. We specifically
discussed the part of the proposal that referred to RIPE NCC bodies and
suggested improvements to make the proposal more suitable for submission.

During this process, the proposal went through a number of iterations,
but we remained concerned about the lack of a clear problem statement.
At the same time we felt it was not wise to propose a change to the very
process we were reviewing. Therefore we suggested to defer the
publication of the policy proposal until the review of the appeal has
been finalised.

After having looked more thoroughly at the Policy Development Process
and the review of the appeal, the RIPE Chair communicated to the
proposer on 1 December: “Therefore Niall and I believe that the RIPE
Policy Development Process already adequately excludes participation in
its appeal process by the people responsible for the decision under
appeal. We may have missed something; if so, we would be glad to see a
problem statement which makes this clear.”

In the meantime we worked with all parties involved in the appeal on a
review of the appeals process. That review has now been published as a
draft document:

https://www.ripe.net/publications/draft-and-discussion-files/review-of-the-ripe-appeals-procedure
together with a thorough analysis of the evolution of the PDP:

https://www.ripe.net/publications/draft-and-discussion-files/evolution-of-the-ripe-policy-development-process

We are currently working with the RIPE NCC to have both documents
published as RIPE documents. As soon as that is done, we would like to
have a community-wide discussion about the recommendations made in these
documents.

I would like to stress that the RIPE NCC Policy Officer followed the
process very diligently. She provided excellent support to the proposer
and the RIPE Chair Team and cannot be blamed in any way for delaying the
publication of the proposal. Also, at no time was the RIPE NCC trying to
influence the RIPE policy process.

Kind Regards,
Mirjam Kühne
RIPE Chair








**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Working Group Chair Collective Meeting Summary

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

A more in depth reading of "Review of the RIPE Appeals Procedure", which I 
already sent to the chairs-team:

While I basically agree with most of the points, I've some comments:

Regarding recommendation 1, may be some of the timings and roles should be 
better defined in the PDP. I think the PDP must be self-contained, not PDP in 
one document and other documents, it becomes a mess, difficult to follow and at 
the end everything needs to be decided by the community bottom-up consensus 
process. 

Regarding r. 2, this was one of the points that I raised. I'm not reviewing now 
all the emails exchange, just from top of my head, I'd doubts during the 
process. I think it must be clear that, as part of the process (with the actual 
PDP, not considering yet my policy proposal) an ad-hoc mailing list with the 
non-recused WGCC should be created when there is an appeal to handle all the 
process (I guess including the Policy Officer or other RIPE NCC staff). The 
list of those participants should be crystal clear and published, right after 
the appeal is submitted, as a matter or transparency.  I was writing this 
at the same time as reading the document ... I just realized that this is your 
r. 3!

R. 4. I understand that the recusing also must be done for those WG chairs that 
*have* participated in the policy proposal discussion. I recall (as an 
example), in this concrete appeal, some of them actually self-recused, others 
not. One recused because he was already working with me in another policy 
proposal for the same topic. I think this is fair, but somehow it should be 
automatic. I still believe that this requires a PDP update.

R. 5. The appeal said things that are against the PDP ... or against what 
chairs declared in the non-consensus decision. I've sent an email about that. 
Again, from top of my head: there is nothing in the PDP that avoids me to send 
a new version of the policy proposal (there is NO WAY in the PDP for any WG 
chairs to REJECT or DELAY the publication of a proposal/version, etc.), however 
chairs said that. And the appeal result indicated otherwise ...

R. 6. I think my policy proposal resolves that. May be just need to detail that 
"one of Appeal Committee members will be selected by the group to chair the 
sessions".

R. 7, looks a duplication of previous inputs, anyway, I think again my proposal 
already resolves that, as it is clear that the appellant also must have the 
right to indicate who has a conflict with him/her and should participate in the 
appeal.

R. 8. Agree.

R.9. I don't agree here. The PDP is clearly modified by the PDP itself. This is 
also the way followed by all the other RIRs, and the way we used to make the 
last change (I was the author of 
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-04). However, I agree 
that it will be better to remove "The RIPE Chair is the author and owner of 
this document.". There is actually something that I've already discussed 
several times with Marco (when he was PO) and Hans Peter (when he was RIPE 
Chair) and we never progressed about that:
- In none of the other RIRs the policies have "attribution" neither 
"acknowledgments". A Policy proposal becomes a policy because the community 
"edits" it by means of work with the author(s). If we decide that the policies 
should list the authors and ack section, let's do it for *ALL THEM*, like the 
IETF documents. When I edit an IETF document, I remain for the entire life of 
the document (RFC, STD, etc.), as author(s), and I list in the ack section 
*all* the people that has participated (not those that just provided grammar 
edits ...). In the RIPE policies, some of them have an attribution or ack 
section (I never used that in any of my policy proposals), but others did 
(examples RIPE-710, RIPE-705, RIPE-682, etc.). I think we should be consistent. 
Or we include that section in all the "actual" policies, or we delete it from 
all them (I prefer this one, it is a community work).

R. 10. Radically disagree here! This kind of filtering is artificial, and only 
leads to "luck". If those that don't like a proposal idea are more pro-active, 
the proposal is dead and has no opportunities. No other RIRs are doing this. 
ARIN is a bit different because the AC. This is in fact against the PDP, in the 
sense, that as said before, chairs can't delay, or reject a policy proposal if 
the scope is the one in the WG. Regarding having co-authors, I usually try, 
like in IETF, but in most of the occasions the experience shows that is 
negative. I've been in situations in IETF and LACNIC, where my co-authors, 
didn't replied at all, I was "holding" a new version of the proposal because 
lack of response, etc., etc., etc. I must say that, this even happened to me in 
one of the RIPE policy proposals (not in all the others that I've got 
co-authors). So, yes, I'm happy to work with co-authors, but only if they are 
really proactive and that means reacting in hours, not "weeks" 

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Working Group Chair Collective Meeting Summary

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Mirjam, all,

First of all, I want to thank for this extensive work.

I've read the link that you provided and the documents linked to it, and I 
agree with most of the points, while I still think there are missing points or 
issues.

I'm going to discuss here only the most important ones, I may be missing others 
at this point, so I can come back later on if needed.

1) I agree that it doesn't make sense the text about the ownership of the PDP. 
However, I don't think (point 3 in your link) that there is any doubt about the 
way the PDP needs to be updated. In all the RIRs, the PDP is updated by the 
PDP, and we have been there already a couple of years ago 
(https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-04 resulted in the 
RIPE-710)! Now, if we want to make it more explicit, I've no issue with that.

2) Not always we have "problem" (point 4, 1st p.) and thus it means a problem 
statement can be acceptable for some folks and not others, so clearly this must 
not be in the hands of a few (like WG chairs), but part of the consensus. For 
example, sometimes (2018-04 is a good example of that), we are adopting policy 
changes, or even PDP changes, because there is a need to improve the clarify of 
the text and avoid different interpretations, which can be a very bad thing.

3) Following in point 4, I agree that consensus definition must support 
anonymous the same way we have anonymous participants in the list. I 
"personally" don't like that, but I need to accept that if I accept the concept 
of consensus and I see a valid justification for that: someone could have a 
view that is against his/her employer and if he/she uses real name, it may get 
problems in the job. I really prefer anonymous than false identities, or use as 
puppets other community members. Now, what I disagree is in what degree the 
decision of the WG chairs to continue the discussion. This is a much bigger 
problem.

4) I participate in all the RIRs PDPs, and the low number of participants is 
quite usual. In fact, it may seem that ARIN and RIPE have more active 
participation, but if you look at it as % of membership, we are actually 
"worst" than other RIRs! In other RIRs there have been studies and work to try 
to resolve that: all failed, and I don't think anything will work. The problem 
is that even resource holders don't see the PDP as part of their job. I think 
is that way, because whatever we do in the PDP may affect your resources or the 
way you "use them". I've been insulted in other RIRs even to say that is part 
of their job and it must be an obligation to participate, but I really don't 
care, I prefer to express honestly my views.

A few weeks ago, I was already considering to send a new policy proposal to 
make some other changes in the PDP. I will start working on that, in case 
others will like to participate.
 
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 9/2/21 11:58, "ripe-list en nombre de Mirjam Kuehne" 
 escribió:

Dear colleagues,

The RIPE Working Group Chairs met in January to review the appeal and to
exchange experiences with regard to the RIPE Policy Development Process.
We also discussed the meeting plan for the upcoming RIPE 82 Meeting. You
can find a summary from the meeting here:


https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/wg-chairs/working-group-chair-collective/summaries/working-group-chair-interim-meeting-summary

Kind regards,
Mirjam Kühne
RIPE Chair






**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] repeated and continued PDP violation - WG chairs delaying or denying proposal publication - new policy proposal "Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure"

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

For many years ago, at lease since I did my first policy proposal (around 2003 
or so I think), in most of the RIRs, the staff provides an initial feedback, 
editorial suggestions, sometimes they verify if something can really be done or 
not, possible issues, suggestions, etc., etc.

I think this is good and perfectly acceptable *if* it is not "mandatory" for 
the authors to take it.

Same for the chairs (very few actually), they provide inputs, suggestions, 
etc., etc., etc., but can't enforce the authors about those.

I believe this is especially important because having more eyes and native 
English speakers (in 4 of the 5 RIRs) reading the proposal before the formal 
publication, can save a lot of discussion time and avoid miss-interpretations 
(because language or wording).

I'm talking from my own experience: I've not really counted how many policy 
proposals I've submitted among all the RIRs, but probably close or slightly 
exceeding 100 and I think about 95% have succeeded to reach consensus (not 
counting those that are still in discussion or equivalent phases - may be 
around 15 at the time being). I think it is a good "sampling" of how the 
process works.

If other authors have a different experience, it will be good to know.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 8/2/21 14:38, "Jim Reid"  escribió:



    > On 7 Feb 2021, at 21:56, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list 
 wrote:
> 
> I proposed several choices in my first versions (Arbiters, then Board), 
but the staff suggested against ... 

So, the NCC staff are making policy now? Interesting.




**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] a proposal to change the PDP

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Gert,

Yes, but not *all those that participated in the discussion and opposed to the 
proposal* did the same. So, it is not an accusation, it is just *facts*.

Again, not take this as "because this specific appeal": This proposal was 
written *before* the appeal, just looking in to the appeal section of the 
RIPE-710. That must be very clear.

What I'm saying is that the actual PDP doesn't enforce all the chairs having 
participated (or even worst opposed) to the proposal, to recuse themselves. It 
also doesn't allow the authors of the policy proposal to recuse some of the 
chairs, which clearly it is a situation that can play against them. You don't 
know the "personal or business" motivations that a cochair can have against a 
proposal or authors. It is not rational to allow them to participate.

*The same in the other way around*. It is not rational that if my best friend 
is going to participate in the appeal is allowed to participate.

The actual wording "allows" them (both sides) to recuse themselves, but not 
enforce that (if they don't disclose their personal or business motivations may 
be nobody knows or only the proposal authors know).


Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 8/2/21 11:33, "ripe-list en nombre de Gert Doering" 
 escribió:

    Hi,

    On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 09:28:31AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
ripe-list wrote:
> [Jordi] It has not been the case in the first appeal we had. Chairs that 
> participated in the discussion, so voiced their opinion against the 
> proposal discussion (and of course I agree they should do it), haven't 
> recused themselves. 

Now this is an interesting accusation.

From what *I* recall, quite a number of WG chairs (me among them) recused
themselves because of (real or perceived) neutrality issues.

Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael 
Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] a proposal to change the PDP

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Jim,

ANY organization even if is not related to LAW, must do things according to 
LAW, otherwise, thinks against the law happen, and anyone can escalate them to 
the law.

We can't decide in RIPE, that we will not allow blond hair people to 
participate.


El 8/2/21 11:27, "ripe-list en nombre de Jim Reid"  escribió:



> On 8 Feb 2021, at 08:28, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list 
 wrote:
> 
> Just look at legal systems.

Exactly. This is RIPE. It’s not a court. Or a quasi-legal organisation.

Think *VERY* carefully about making RIPE a lawyer-fest. There are other 
institutions which have those properties. Maybe you’d be more comfortable there?

While I’m here Jordi, could you *please* fix your MUA so it does quoting 
properly? It would also be nice if you got rid of that silly and ridiculous 
email disclaimer which claims everyone on a mailing list is a criminal for the 
"disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents” of your emails.





**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] a proposal to change the PDP

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Funny, that were my thoughts exactly. Let's add the obvious problem on
what to do if something thinks someone on the panel (however elected)
is baised but the person her/himself doesn't think so, etc.

[Jordi] The proposal has simple text for that.



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] a proposal to change the PDP

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

The proposal is fundamentally flawed because it shows a very poor 
understanding of how the PDP works. If/when a consensus judgement gets appealed 
to the WG Co-chairs Collective, anyone on the WGCC who was involved in that 
earlier judgement recuses themselves from the appeal. This is common sense and 
doesn’t need to be written down.

[Jordi] It has not been the case in the first appeal we had. Chairs that 
participated in the discussion, so voiced their opinion against the proposal 
discussion (and of course I agree they should do it), haven't recused 
themselves. Also, there are chances that "personal conflicts" happen and they 
don't recuse themselves, so at least there must be the chance to ask for 
recusing some of the chairs. Just look at legal systems. You can always, if you 
expose a reason, to ask for a judge recusation, and also when you appeal, it is 
a totally different set of judges from a totally different level. It is for 
perfect reasonable reasons.





**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] repeated and continued PDP violation - WG chairs delaying or denying proposal publication - new policy proposal "Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure"

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

I don't agree.

Just look to other RIRs, or different "groups" with a chair.

I think it must be explicit, if is in the PDP or in the "description of the 
chairs attributions", doesn't matter, but of course, the PDP should have an 
explicit reference to that document and that document should also reach 
consensus in the community.

 

El 7/2/21 23:28, "ripe-list en nombre de Nick Hilliard" 
 escribió:

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote on 07/02/2021 22:04:
> El 7/2/21 22:49, "Nick Hilliard"  escribió:
>  Incidentally, the duty to manage discussion isn't something specific 
to
>  RIPE WG chairs - it's a general accepted principle about the rights 
and
>  responsibilities of all chairs, regardless of what they're chairing.
>  There's nothing unusual about the RIPE WG chair duties in this 
respect.
> 
> [Jordi] Again, where is that in the PDP? We can't accept a PDP that we 
can interpret in different ways when we (or the chairs) wish.

Jordi,

apologies, I tried to make it clear that this was not something specific 
to RIPE WG chairs, but maybe I wasn't clear enough:  it's not in the PDP 
because it's a generally accepted duty and responsibility of all chairs, 
everywhere.  If there were a need to document it explicitly - and I 
don't think there is a need - it would be in the WG Chair Job 
Description and Procedures document.

Nick




**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] repeated and continued PDP violation - WG chairs delaying or denying proposal publication - new policy proposal "Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure"

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Nick,

El 7/2/21 22:49, "Nick Hilliard"  escribió:

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote on 07/02/2021 13:05:
> Briefly, in several situation I've written policy proposals, and the
> chairs of the WG, tried to convince me to not publish it, or actually
> decided not to publish it, or delayed it.

Jordi,

without prejudice to any of the proposals that you've submitted to 
various working groups over the years, one of the jobs of a working 
group chair is to make a call on whether or not a proposal is suitable 
for their working group.

[Jordi] I mention that in my email. I agree that the chairs may decide that it 
may be "out of the scope of the WG", but nothing else.

There are a lot of reasons for this, but the one of the generally 
accepted responsibilities of any chair is to ensure functional 
communication within a group and ensuring that the communication within 
the group is relevant and on-topic.  So, a chair is within their rights 
to decline to take on a proposal if they feel it's unlikely to achieve 
consensus, or if it's been discussed extensively already without 
consensus, or if it contains - in their opinion - proposals which would 
be highly unlikely to gain consensus, or if they feel that the proposal 
was inappropriate or out of scope for their particular working group, 
and so on.

[Jordi] I disagree here. By the fact that we are using consensus, it may happen 
that a single person in the community (example of an extreme case) supports a 
proposal, but *all the objections* to the proposal are invalid. For example, in 
case of very technical and *demonstrated* issues and *demonstrated* solutions. 
So, if the chairs disagree on accepting it, then it is impossible that 
consensus "really works". Besides that, if we really want to have that, then we 
can't use anymore "consensus" AND, we should have it clearly defined in the 
PDP. The PDP right now doesn't ALLOW rejecting a proposal. In fact, unless I'm 
missing it, as per today, the only RIR that has this chairs pre-decision of 
acceptance in the PDP is ARIN and it is really a bit different, because it 
works via the AC, etc.

In other words, regardless of whether or not it's stated explicitly in 
the PDP, the WG chair has leeway to accept or reject a proposal, as they 
see fit.

[Jordi] How come something not in the PDP is valid? Then tomorrow chairs can 
decide that something else "not in the PDP" is what they want to do! Irrational.

If a RIPE WG chair rejects a proposal, the PDP allows the proposer to 
forward the proposal to the RIPE Chair.  This would trigger an 
examination of the WG chair's decision.  External review always causes 
us to examine our actions more seriously, so it seems unlikely that a WG 
chair would reject a proposal lightly, as they can be held to account 
for their decision.

[Jordi] There is no such thing in the PDP. I would agree that this is a 
possible way forward, if the PDP has both aspects made explicit, but none of 
them are.

Incidentally, the duty to manage discussion isn't something specific to 
RIPE WG chairs - it's a general accepted principle about the rights and 
responsibilities of all chairs, regardless of what they're chairing. 
There's nothing unusual about the RIPE WG chair duties in this respect.

[Jordi] Again, where is that in the PDP? We can't accept a PDP that we can 
interpret in different ways when we (or the chairs) wish.

Nick



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] repeated and continued PDP violation - WG chairs delaying or denying proposal publication - new policy proposal "Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure"

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Andy,

I proposed several choices in my first versions (Arbiters, then Board), but the 
staff suggested against ... I understood some of the points of the disagreement 
by the staff, but I'm still open to have it again if the community believes is 
the right way.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 7/2/21 22:54, "ripe-list en nombre de Andy Davidson" 
 escribió:


On 7 Feb 2021, at 13:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list 
 wrote:
>  ("Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure”) 

Hi, Jordi, all

On your policy proposal: Is this something the Arbiters [0] could do well?

Andy

[0] http://ripe.net/about-us/legal/arbitration/list-of-arbiters



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] repeated and continued PDP violation - WG chairs delaying or denying proposal publication - new policy proposal "Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure"

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Sander,

The last appeal demonstrated that:

1) Folks that should haven’t participated in the appeal, actually participated. 
It is clear that if you had a previous clear idea about a proposal, and even 
exposed it in the list during the discussion, shouldn't participate in the 
appeal. I think that something very obvious.
2) The one submitting the appeal, may recognize "issues" with someone resolving 
the appeal (was not my case, this time, but it happens), and then it should be 
able to deny that person participating in the resolution of the appeal.
3) If you want to be neutral, you need another layer, even if this adds some 
bureaucracy. What is clear is that the same layer of "judges" (the WGCC), even 
if we can trust they can be objective and neutral, it doesn't appear like that. 
It is about human nature.
4) The proposal number was the one available during the exchange of emails with 
the PDO. I've not changed it when sending the PDF to the list, just to keep the 
text "as it was". I fully understand that it will be provided at publication 
time by the staff, and this is the reason, in my email (subject and body), I've 
not used it at all, just the proposal title.


Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 7/2/21 22:46, "Sander Steffann"  escribió:

Hi Jordi,

Only responding to your proposal. I think this is a horrible idea.
Things are rarely, if ever, solved by inventing more layers of
bureaucracy. Creating an appeals committee is about the worst way to
deal with your unhappiness that the chairs don't agree with you.

The current policy already states that anybody who is involved in the
dispute has to recuse themselves, so there is no conflict of interest
to "fix".

Cheers,
Sander


PS: PLEASE don't invent your own proposal numbers. The RIPE NCC PDO is
the one who keeps track of proposal numbers. You can discuss things on
this list, but please stop giving your proposals self-invented numbers
to make them look more official.



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

[ripe-list] repeated and continued PDP violation - WG chairs delaying or denying proposal publication - new policy proposal "Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure"

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi all,

Across the years, I've suffered this situation several times and I think this 
community must not allow it anymore and I wish the PDP has explicit actions 
against those situations, so they don't happen over and over.

Briefly, in several situation I've written policy proposals, and the chairs of 
the WG, tried to convince me to not publish it, or actually decided not to 
publish it, or delayed it.

Of course, this is a clear violation of the PDP (RIPE-710). The PDP states:
"Discussions may be started by anyone at any time. Participants are welcome to 
discuss broad ideas as well as to make detailed policy proposals"

Also:
"A proposal is discussed publicly in the relevant RIPE Working Group (WG)[1]. 
The proposal is usually submitted via the chair of that WG."

Actually, and since many years, "usually", you submit the proposal to the 
Policy Officer and if you already know the appropriate WG, you copy to the WG 
chairs. It is normal that the publication is delayed for a few days, as the WG 
chairs can provide some inputs, the staff as well (including editorial 
suggestions), questions to the staff, even the Board, etc., etc.

HOWEVER, there is no way for the WG chairs to delay or deny a publication or 
reject a proposal (unless is clearly out of the scope of the WG).

Actual specific example of the situation I'm facing (approximate dates, just to 
show the unacceptable delay in a policy proposal publication):

1) 9th September 2020: Anti-abuse-wg chairs decided to declare non-consensus in 
proposal 2019-04 and I announce that I've asked them for more details and if 
I'm not satisfied, I will start an appeal. A couple of community members, in 
private, tell me that it will not happen. I re-read the PDP and get convinced 
that they're right, but I must do it anyway.

2) I write a policy proposal ("Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure") to 
update the PDP to avoid this happening in the future (so clearly knowing that 
it will be relevant for my appeal). Submitted formally on 5th October. This 
proposal is sent to the Policy Officer and copied the chairs-team (as the PDP 
update is done via the "plenary" WG).

3) In the following few days/weeks, there are some updates of the policy 
proposal, thanks to the inputs of the Policy Officer and even there is a 
request to the Board for their confirmation in one detail (no longer relevant 
in the attached version).

4) At the end of October, as a result of several inputs from the Policy Officer 
and the Board I've a final version, which however, gets new inputs from the 
chairs-team so my very last version is really final by 12 of November and I ask 
for immediate publication.

5) Chairs-team try to convince me that they don't agree with a paragraph from 
the proposal on December 1st, also they indicate that Xmas is a bad timing 
(which never minds because the discussion phase could be extended if there are 
no inputs, etc.).

6) Even if there have been several requests from my side for publication (we 
have been discussing a parallel topic for a report on the appeal process, which 
doesn't change my perspective on my proposal), I've asked several times for the 
immediate publication, which has not yet been done.

I agree that a month, for an initial discussion with the staff, editorial 
inputs, etc., is acceptable, even if most of those discussions could actually 
happen just in 1-2 weeks, because they could take place in parallel, instead of 
sequentially as it has been the case. However, we have got 3 extra months 
(November, December, January), and the proposal is NOT YET PUBLISHED. Even 
worst, the last times I asked for the publication, I got NO RESPONSE from the 
chairs.

As a consequence, in addition to make sure that this NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN (I 
mean in general, no violation of the PDP), I attach the proposal, so the staff, 
*following the mandate of the PDP* (not the chairs, which have no voice on this 
according to the PDP) publish it IMMEDIATELY and we can start a discussion of 
it, immediately.

Thanks.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



2020-01-PDP-appeals_v1.7_r

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Those viruses do not resist temperatures over 24-25C, so if spring is not 
sufficiently hot, we just need to disconnect the air condition in the hotel and 
save some energy.

Seriously. I think it is too early for taking a decision, and the decision may 
depend on the German authorities to cancel events, and in that case,  everybody 
will be able to claim flight and hotel expenses if they have been pre-paid, 
including the cost for the NCC itself, which I guess is non-refundable if 
cancelled without the authorities mandate.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 2/3/20 20:27, "ripe-list en nombre de Antonio Prado via ripe-list" 
 escribió:

On 3/2/20 7:33 PM, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
> so...why the fuss?

Hi,

I really don't know if it's fuss or not, if the topic has been
overstated or not, if the outbreak is going to be contained or not.

I'd just stick to the facts: the seasonal flu has been studied for
decades, there is an effective vaccine and the death rate is around 0.1%
(in US), despite the high number of deaths (18k), and a R0 (how easily a
virus spreads) value of 1.3.

OTOH, very little is known about the new coronavirus and the disease it
causes, there is not a vaccine so far, the death rate is around 2.3% (in
China), and a R0 value between 2 and 3.

Anyway, as Jim recalled, a lot of events are being cancelled to which I
would add ITB Berlin: "The responsible health authority of the district
of Charlottenburg-Wilmersdorf in Berlin imposed significantly tighter
restrictions on holding the event".

https://www.itb-berlin.de/en/Extrapages/HealthInfo/

IMO, we as a community should care of it and tackle this issue with a
correct, rational, prudent attitude.
--
antonio





**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] Towards a more inclusive community

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Hans,

I can tell you that I've been harassed in this RIR and another RIR meetings, 
both by email and in person, just because I'm contributing. Just because my 
views in my policy proposal are different than the view of other people.

People yelled me in the mic, insulted me by email, but the most terrible thing 
was trying to scare me with "you will return home in a box" if you keep going 
this path.

Of course, I'm not scared at all, but I'm sure some people could feel scared, 
not come to meetings and even more, stop contributing in the lists.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 17/10/19 16:09, "ripe-list en nombre de Hank Nussbacher" 
 escribió:

On 17/10/2019 17:00, Leslie wrote:

Indeed.  I am clueless since I haven't seen a single incident message 
among the various mailing lists.  I would expect that RIPE should name 
and shame those harassing people at meetings.I am truly speechless 
that this goes on in 2019.

-Hank

> Perhaps you are not the one being harassed and the folks who are
> haven't told you about their experiences.
>
> Leslie
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 6:57 AM Hank Nussbacher  
wrote:
>> On 17/10/2019 16:24, Job Snijders wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I've been observing various efforts towards constructing a safe and
>>> inclusive environment both at RIPE meetings and our online platforms.
>> I have not been to as many meetings as you but I have never seen any
>> incident, even in the slightest, where the people attending were acting
>> inappropriately in any sort of way.I consider RIPE meetings
>> extremely safe and inclusive, so just paint me clueless as to what the
>> issue is.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Hank
>>
>>
>>> I appreciate these efforts, however, I have some concerns with the
>>> process and our ability to execute.
>>>
>>> A careful observer may see that the next generation of Internet
>>> engineers is not quite like the current establishment. I believe this
>>> diversity needs to be acknowledged in our policies. We owe it to them
>>> to create an environment that contributes to their comfort and well
>>> being.
>>>
>>> I recorded some thoughts on my way to RIPE - 
https://youtu.be/6_dLgcfv8kU
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Job
>>>
>>






**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] Endorsement of Afrinic board candidates

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Jim,

Transparency: Because the original email was sent to that list, and because I 
think is right to ask publicly our ASO-AC representatives.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 3/7/19 17:14, "ripe-list en nombre de Jim Reid"  escribió:



> On 3 Jul 2019, at 16:12, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list 
 wrote:
> 
> I know, but my question is to the ASO-AC itself. Do they have a code of 
conduct?

Why didn’t you ask them instead of ripe-list?






**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] Endorsement of Afrinic board candidates

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

I know, but my question is to the ASO-AC itself. Do they have a code of conduct?

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 3/7/19 17:11, "Sander Steffann"  escribió:

Hi Jordi,

> I was shocked when I saw the email in the Afrinic list. For reference:
> 
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2019-July/003140.html
> 
> I will say even more.
> 
> There is an explicit code of conduct for the members?
> 
> There is a way for an ASO-AC member to be displaced?

Wafa sits on the seat appointed by the Afrinic board. Replacing her is none 
of the RIPE community's business. We have to respect another RIR's choices.

Cheers,
Sander






**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] Endorsement of Afrinic board candidates

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

I was shocked when I saw the email in the Afrinic list. For reference:
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2019-July/003140.html

I will say even more.

There is an explicit code of conduct for the members?

There is a way for an ASO-AC member to be displaced?

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 3/7/19 15:14, "ripe-list en nombre de Sander Steffann" 
 escribió:

Hi RIPE ASO/AC delegates,

I just read the following on the Afrinic community mailing list, and got a 
bit concerned:

> My name is Wafa Dahmani from Tunisia, an active member of the African 
community and more specifically AFRINIC: member of the appeal committee; ASO / 
AC excom member and Ex Chair of Governance Committee '(GC) at AFRINIC.
> I contact you to solicit your votes for the following candidates:

> [etc]

While she doesn't explicitly state that she is soliciting votes on behalf 
of the ASO/AC, it does seem to imply it.

I found it hard to believe that the ASO/AC would agree with this statement 
as sent by Wafa. I know questions about this have already been sent to the 
ASO/AC, but I would like some feedback from our own delegates. I wonder whether 
you were aware of this and what your positions on this are. I suspect that this 
was not something agreed to by the ASO/AC, or at least not by our own 
delegates, but I would like that confirmed please :)

I though long whether to cross-post this to the ripe-list and in the end 
decided that I should, for transparency's and accountability's sake.

Cheers,
Sander





**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

[ripe-list] IPv6 faster than IPv4 (also with 464XLAT)

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

We already knew that from previous measurements, however the nice thing from 
this article is that it is analyzing many different providers worldwide:

https://teamarin.net/2019/06/25/why-is-ipv6-faster/


Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Jim,

I don't agree. Sometimes courts/DPAs will not take cases in consideration if 
there is not an explicit reminder. I've seen that already in real cases.

I realized today that this message is already there and I missed it before (or 
maybe it has been added after this discussion). In any case, thanks a lot for 
that!

A couple of examples:

https://www.ripe.net/membership/indices/data/ru.netup.html

https://ripe73.ripe.net/attend/attendee-list/

https://ripe77.ripe.net/attend/attendee-list/


Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-Mensaje original-
De: ripe-list  en nombre de Jim Reid 

Fecha: martes, 26 de febrero de 2019, 10:47
Para: RIPE Community 
Asunto: Re: [ripe-list] Fwd: possible abuse case with our emails / spam from 
euromoney/capacitymedia



> we should have a message, in the attendee list of all our events (past, 
present and future) in the line of "This list is for the benefit of the 
participants and RIPE doesn't authorize to use it for marketing prospects or 
any other activities. We remind that GDPR requires explicit consent to use this 
data".

Sorry Jordi. I think this is worthless bullshit. There's no way to express 
this tactfully. These sorts of disclaimers are no different from the stupid 
legalese that gets appended to far too many corporate emails: "if you are not 
the intended recipient... blah, blah, blah".

Spammers and marketing scum will pay no attention to your suggested 
disclaimer. And I very much doubt someone could successfully prosecute or sue 
whenever a breach has occurred on the basis of that disclaimer. If someone's 
violated GDPR, it'll make no difference whether or not this sort of disclaimer 
exists.

I think we should concentrate on making sure our personal data are 
protected from mis-use rather than sticking up yet another warning notice on 
our front door. IMO we've already got too many of them. And, dubious virtue 
signalling aside, I'm not convinced they do any good.

Has anyone got any evidence to show that warnings like the one above have 
actually reduced the volume of spam or made a marketroid behave properly? Until 
that evidence emerges, we should stop going down this path - and very probably 
stop this thread too.







**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

The company sending the spam said that.

Once you get the complete name of people from the attendee list, just make a 
script to google for the emails ...

Other people that coincidently participated in RIPE got the same spam (I'm sure 
many others, but may be not in this list or just don't responding).

As said, at a minimum we should send a clear message by starting a law suit 
against this company.

If we don't do that already, we should have a message, in the attendee list of 
all our events (past, present and future) in the line of "This list is for the 
benefit of the participants and RIPE doesn't authorize to use it for marketing 
prospects or any other activities. We remind that GDPR requires explicit 
consent to use this data".

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-Mensaje original-
De: ripe-list  en nombre de Daniel Karrenberg 

Fecha: lunes, 25 de febrero de 2019, 20:11
Para: RIPE Community 
Asunto: [ripe-list] Fwd: possible abuse case with our emails / spam from 
euromoney/capacitymedia


Forgot to say something important:

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

Daniel





**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Daniel,

Responding below in-line.

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-Mensaje original-
De: ripe-list  en nombre de Daniel Karrenberg 

Fecha: lunes, 25 de febrero de 2019, 19:24
Para: RIPE Community 
Asunto: Re: [ripe-list] possible abuse case with our emails / spam from 
euromoney/capacitymedia



On 23/02/2019 12:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
> ... I'm starting to wonder if it makes sense that the RIRs (IETF, ICANN, 
etc.), keeps publishing the list of attendees. There is any reason for that 
from the RIPE community or the RIPE NCC perspective? (please keep reading 
before responding)
> 
> I agree that this is very useful for the event participants itself, but 
it could be made available only for the participants, once they have checked-in 
(so they are on-site) and once they log-in only. This way we avoid people 
registering and actually not coming just to get the data.
> 
> This way also, if a participant is the one that is capturing the data, in 
addition to the consequences with the DPA, if identified, he/she can be banned 
for attending further RIR meetings. ...


Jordi,

I get more than 10 spams for each message I might want to actually read.
I survive with automation and by paying the absolute minimum of effort
on unwanted messages. I agree that SPAM is annoying. Therefore I
normally stop doing business with those that 'loose' my mail addresses.
Personally I am also a privacy advocate since the early 1970s, that's
before the Internet became a threat. ;-)

I've the same problem and with a similar ratio approximately. However, for many 
reasons, I've around 20 live different emails accounts, so most of the time, 
those numbers are x10-x12 or close to that (fortunately not all the account 
receive all the spam copies). Fortunately, also, spamassassin is doing a good 
job and 90% of the spam is already pre-classified in the spam in-box, but I 
still need to take a "quick" lock into that every day, as to avoid that 
"fine-tuning" filters wanted emails as spam ones.

I don't think the people realize how damaging is the spam and the personal data 
collection. I know a lawyer who the court claimed 40.000 Euros because his case 
was lost because the email with the order for the audience was filtered as spam 
... and that's without considering how much time per day we use in filtering 
emails ... millions of people.

For me they are criminals, and they deserve several years of jail, in addition 
to compensating people (automatically without courts, just claiming to the 
DPAs, in addition to the DPAs imposed fines). Unfortunately, in European-Roman 
law to get this compensation you need to invest in a case and demonstrate the 
judge for every cent (which is impossible), of damages they caused you ... 
British/American law looks better in the sense of allowing you to just claim an 
amount with compensates your time/damages.

I also decided several years ago to claim in the DPA those cases of persistent 
spam. Typically, about 1.000 claims per year. One day I should write an article 
about the email-marketing companies mafia around this ... and how they try to 
jump over the law ... but that's another topic and probably will require some 
journalist to get involved to complete a good research work.

However we should not overreact to these practices and threats like you
are suggesting!

I don't think I'm overreacting. I think that by default when registering into 
the events the publication of our names must be blocked (and you opt-in to 
allow it), except for other on-site participants. May be is already the case 
but didn't realized it before, because never got a suspicious that this is 
happening in our events. Now I've a different view, clearly.

I fully agree that the RIRs should spend reasonable efforts to prosecute
abuse of the data we publish. However, publishing less as a reaction to
this abuse needs very very careful consideration.

Ok, then let's make sure that we sent a clear signal that we are going to do 
that, and let's take legal actions against this criminal company that is at 
least saying the RIPE and LACNIC provide the data.

Publishing the attendance lists is very useful for research and also for
projecting openness and transparency. For instance Shane Kerr has worked
on diversity from these published lists:
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/shane/measuring-diversity-at-ripe-meetings.
I personally am working on these lists right now in order to in support

I've not said that this must be banned for researchers. I think this is great, 
but we must have the control of at least know "this guy or group is using our 
data".

developing the RIPE Chair selection procedure. We also publish mailing
list archives that are a treasu

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Thanks Bengt,

Yes, the spam was NOT thru the list, sorry if I confused someone on that aspect.

I got the first email on 15th February and the 2nd one on 21st.

The point is that it looks to me very suspicious that they tell me that the 
data is provided by RIPE (initially) and then by LACNIC.

Now your confirmation makes it clear that somehow, they are "capturing" emails 
from the RIRs communities ...

Or maybe they look for the attendance list, which is public, and they do a 
search for the emails with google, and they lie about "how" they have obtained 
the data.

In any case, even if our emails are "searchable" in Internet, GDPR requires 
explicit consent to 1) register it in a database, 2) send spam.

But further to that, informing that the RIRs itself provided the data, should 
be legally prosecuted.

I'm starting to wonder if it makes sense that the RIRs (IETF, ICANN, etc.), 
keeps publishing the list of attendees. There is any reason for that from the 
RIPE community or the RIPE NCC perspective? (please keep reading before 
responding)

I agree that this is very useful for the event participants itself, but it 
could be made available only for the participants, once they have checked-in 
(so they are on-site) and once they log-in only. This way we avoid people 
registering and actually not coming just to get the data.

This way also, if a participant is the one that is capturing the data, in 
addition to the consequences with the DPA, if identified, he/she can be banned 
for attending further RIR meetings.

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-Mensaje original-
De: ripe-list  en nombre de Bengt Gördén 

Organización: Resilans AB
Fecha: sábado, 23 de febrero de 2019, 19:38
Para: 
Asunto: Re: [ripe-list] possible abuse case with our emails / spam from 
euromoney/capacitymedia

    On 2019-02-23 07:32, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
> I'm curious if nobody else got this spam in the list.

Not on/in the list but I (we. all three that normally attend RIPE 
meetings from our company) got one at 2019-01-16 12:36. It was about a 
Subsea EMEA event in Marseilles.

Cheers,


-- 

Bengt Gördén
Resilans AB






**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Fergal,

Thanks for your response.

Definitively, if you agree, I will quote your text on this email, in the DPA 
complaint.

I guess also you may want to take legal actions because they are spreading the 
message about "RIPE" is providing the data ... Let me know in private email (so 
we don't disturb the list) if you need anything from my side for that.

One more information I can provide, is that after sending my email to the list, 
they responded to another of my complaints indicating that it was LACNIC who 
provided the data ... Of course, I've asked LACNIC as well.

I'm curious if nobody else got this spam in the list.

Regards,
Jordi
 
 

-Mensaje original-
De: ripe-list  en nombre de Fergal Cunningham 

Fecha: sábado, 23 de febrero de 2019, 0:57
Para: 
Asunto: Re: [ripe-list] possible abuse case with our emails / spam from 
euromoney/capacitymedia

Hi Jordi,

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. You are quite right - we do
not share the personal data of attendees at our organised events with
third parties unless this is required in order to help attendees
participate in those events. This can happen, for example, when we
assist attendees with preparing their visa applications. But in all such
cases, personal data is shared only at the request of, and in
coordination with, the attendee.

We can assure you that we have not provided this organisation with any
contact details. Please let us know if we can help support your
complaint with the relevant authorities.

Kind regards,

Fergal Cunningham
Marketing and Communications Manager
RIPE NCC





**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

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

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi all,

Since a few days ago, I'm getting spam from Euromoney regarding their Capacity 
events.

Note that I'm not trying to advertise them, but before proceeding with a formal 
complain to the Data Protection Agencies, I want to know if is an isolated case 
or a massive one in the RIPE community.

After several complaints (they didn't respond initially and continued with the 
spam) and mail exchange, this company is ensuring me today (I copy literally): 
"This particular contact does not have any purchase or online registration, it 
was loaded as a prospect from Capacity Media as an attendee for a 3rd party 
event (RIPE)." 

A few minutes ago, I've already asked the NCC to confirm if they have provided 
our personal data, which I doubt, of course, but I want to know if others are 
getting the same spam, which will mean that they are abusing our mail exploders 
or something similar ...

Thanks!

Regards,
Jordi
 
 



**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] 2018-04 Review Phase (PDP Clarification)

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Being the author, I guess redundancy is not needed, but just in case!



+1





Regards,

Jordi

 

 



-Mensaje original-

De: ripe-list  en nombre de Gert Doering 


Fecha: martes, 19 de junio de 2018, 15:45

Para: Marco Schmidt 

CC: 

Asunto: Re: [ripe-list] 2018-04 Review Phase (PDP Clarification)



Hi,



On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 01:27:58PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:

> Proposal 2018-04, "PDP Clarification" is now in the Review Phase.

[..]



As the change basically documents the way WGs have been operation

out of practical necessity (and with full transparency in their

respective mailing lists), it's good to write it down and make it 

part of the official options.



I think I already said this, but anyway :-) -> still: support



Gert Doering

-- NetMaster

-- 

have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?



SpaceNet AG  Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael 
Emmer

Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann

D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)

Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279






**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] 2018-04 New Proposal (PDP Clarification)

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi all,

Even if the modification is very small and easy to visualize, I've prepared an 
on-line diff to make easier to understand the change, which basically means 
splitting the last paragraph in two already existing options and adding a third 
one (extending the review phase, which we actually do, but is not formally an 
option of the current PDP).

Here is the diff:

https://www.diffchecker.com/eZXbJlLT


Regards,
Jordi
 
 
-Mensaje original-
De: ripe-list  en nombre de Marco Schmidt 

Fecha: jueves, 26 de abril de 2018, 12:21
Para: 
Asunto: [ripe-list] 2018-04 New Proposal (PDP Clarification)

Dear colleagues,

A new RIPE proposal, 2018-04, "PDP Clarification" is now available for 
discussion.

This proposal aims to clarify the options available to the WG chairs at the 
end of the Review Phase of the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP).

Please note that since changes to the PDP can affect all RIPE Working 
Groups, the RIPE Chair decided to discuss this proposal on the RIPE Discussion 
mailing list. The RIPE Chair will also moderate the proposal discussion.

You can find the complete proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-04

As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four 
week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the 
proposer.

At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the 
RIPE Chair, will decide how to proceed with the proposal.

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to 
ripe-list@ripe.net before 25 May 2018.

Regards,

Marco Schmidt
Policy Officer
RIPE NCC

Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum





**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] Follow up on the Dubai AGM - RIPE WG Chair meeting vouchers

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Ole,

Just for info of the list, I've responded this morning in a private email 
something related to this (copying here only partially my own response).

"... I also know that not every RIR has WGs, but they have equivalent 
structures (eg, Advisory Council for ARIN), and that sometimes the conferences 
are tied to other organizations, etc. At the end, all that doesn't really 
matter, because I'm not trying a one-to-one comparison, just providing 
references of "very-close-species".

APNIC and LACNIC do that, even pay for traveling expenses.

In LACNIC, this is true even for speakers that may obtain a grant for the 
traveling expenses, if they apply and it is justified.

Somebody in the list could confirm for AfriNIC and ARIN, if we want to have the 
5 RIRs picture, I know people there, so I'm happy to ask them directly if 
needed.

Even if RIPE co-chairs could apply in a case-by-case basis for special waiver 
or grants, it is obvious that if you have a specific personal situation, you 
may not want/like to disclose it, and even worse, I think "special" rules are 
always bad things, very subjective and I prefer rules that are always objective 
and the same for same "groups" (like co-chairs or PC "group"), and I don't 
think that can be understood as a "segregation", because that group is elected 
by the community and everybody can make merits so he is considered by the 
community for being part of that group if he wants to invest the additional 
time/effort being part of that."


Regards,
Jordi

-Mensaje original-
De: ripe-list  en nombre de Ole Jacobsen 

Responder a: Ole Jacobsen 
Fecha: viernes, 19 de enero de 2018, 16:27
Para: Lu Heng 
CC: Sander Steffann , RIPE List 
Asunto: Re: [ripe-list] Follow up on the Dubai AGM - RIPE WG Chair meeting 
vouchers


On Thu, 18 Jan 2018, Lu Heng wrote:

> Hi
> 
> APNIC since few meetings cover all expense for the chair(hotel flight 
etc),
> so free meeting ticket seems quite reasonable.
>
> CEO
> 
> Larus Cloud Service Limited
> Tel: +852 2988-8918 
> E-mail: h...@laruscloudservice.net
> Address: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, Hong 
Kong
> Website: https://www.laruscloudservice.net/
> 

Lu,

APNIC doesn't have WGs, they have SIGs, but I guess the SIGs are 
"morale equivalents" in this context. 

Are you sure the SIG chairs at APNIC have all their expenses covered?
That's news to me. Perhaps you are referring to the APNIC EC chair?

Ole


Ole J. Jacobsen 
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office: +1 415-550-9433
Cell:   +1 415-370-4628
Docomo: +81 090 3337-9311
E-mail: olejacob...@me.com
Skype: organdemo






**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] Follow up on the Dubai AGM - RIPE WG Chair meeting vouchers

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

Hi Job,

Below, in-line.

Regards,
Jordi

-Mensaje original-
De: ripe-list  en nombre de Job Snijders 

Fecha: jueves, 18 de enero de 2018, 21:01
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
CC: RIPE List 
Asunto: Re: [ripe-list] Follow up on the Dubai AGM - RIPE WG Chair meeting 
vouchers

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 08:41:12PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via 
ripe-list wrote:
> To make this clear … I also see another aspect.
> 
> I’m not sure if this is the case for actual co-chair, and of course,
> they may not want to comment in the list and we should respect that,
> but I recall some cases some time ago.

Do you suspect there is a systemic issue that folks can't afford to
attend RIPE meetings? We do have the scribes, video stream, chat room
and mailing lists to lower the bar to participate. 

[Jordi] I don’t know if it is affecting many people, or many times, this is 
something they should say if they wish.

Remote participation is very nice, but we know that is not the same. 
Face-to-face chats are very relevant for anything.

> I see a perfect valid case for a co-chair that is willing to
> contribute with his time and effort, but is having financial
> difficulties for getting the traveling + ticket cost covered (either
> by the employer or its own pocket), so I think is fair, at least to
> give the option to those co-chairs that need that, to opt for the
> free-ticket if we don’t want to apply to all the co-chairs.

But what about the working group participants that volunteer their time
creating content, write BCPs, give presentations, answering questions,
designing requirements, etc?

[Jordi] You’re right, many of us are very frequent+constant contributors, but 
I’m sure the time required for a co-chair is much higher.

Ideally, we should compensate all the frequent+constant contributors, may be 
that increases the participation … but I don’t see how can we that, it's a nice 
goal, but really complex to apply.

I will say an intermediate step is to waive also the registration fee for 
speakers, that’s feasible.

Isn't everyone in RIPE a volunteer? It isn't just the chairs that do
'work' in a working group. Without working group participants, there is
no working group. Every participant volunteers to contribute in some way
or form, so I'd be careful to segregate chairs from the rest of the
community.

[Jordi] I think considering this approach of waiving the chairs registration 
fee a segregation is too extreme … Unless I’m wrong, in all the other RIRs 
meetings neither chairs, neither speakers pay for the registration fee. I will 
opt for that also in our meetings without any further thinking. I think is 
unfair not doing so actually.

Kind regards,

Job

-- 

Disclaimer: If you receive this message you must clap your hands.
Failure to comply will be considered as an act of civil disobedience.





**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] Follow up on the Dubai AGM - RIPE WG Chair meeting vouchers

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

To make this clear … I also see another aspect.

I’m not sure if this is the case for actual co-chair, and of course, they may 
not want to comment in the list and we should respect that, but I recall some 
cases some time ago.

I see a perfect valid case for a co-chair that is willing to contribute with 
his time and effort, but is having financial difficulties for getting the 
traveling + ticket cost covered (either by the employer or its own pocket), so 
I think is fair, at least to give the option to those co-chairs that need that, 
to opt for the free-ticket if we don’t want to apply to all the co-chairs.

Regards,
Jordi

-Mensaje original-
De: ripe-list  en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
via ripe-list 
Responder a: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ 
Fecha: jueves, 18 de enero de 2018, 19:15
Para: RIPE List 
Asunto: Re: [ripe-list] Follow up on the Dubai AGM - RIPE WG Chair meeting 
vouchers

I think is wrong to assume that all the employers pay for those expenses, 
and I’m sure more than one of the Chairs pay from their own pocket (or even is 
self-employed).

And the administrative burden for doing this voucher, can be automated 
once, so in my opinion is less than penuts.

Regards,
Jordi

-Mensaje original-
De: ripe-list  en nombre de Job Snijders 

Fecha: jueves, 18 de enero de 2018, 19:05
Para: Erik Bais 
CC: RIPE List 
Asunto: Re: [ripe-list] Follow up on the Dubai AGM - RIPE WG Chair meeting 
vouchers

Hi erik,

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 03:06:59PM +, Erik Bais wrote:
> I asked the Executive Board during the GM, if it is possible to add a
> RIPE meeting voucher for the RIPE WG Chairs as compensation.

In many cases this won't benefit the Chair but merely their employer.
I'm not sure this is a good idea, and brings administrative burden for
no tangible gain. I'm not in support of such a policy change.

How about chairs get to cut the line for coffee? ;-)

Kind regards,

Job





**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.









**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] Follow up on the Dubai AGM - RIPE WG Chair meeting vouchers

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

I think is wrong to assume that all the employers pay for those expenses, and 
I’m sure more than one of the Chairs pay from their own pocket (or even is 
self-employed).

And the administrative burden for doing this voucher, can be automated once, so 
in my opinion is less than penuts.

Regards,
Jordi

-Mensaje original-
De: ripe-list  en nombre de Job Snijders 

Fecha: jueves, 18 de enero de 2018, 19:05
Para: Erik Bais 
CC: RIPE List 
Asunto: Re: [ripe-list] Follow up on the Dubai AGM - RIPE WG Chair meeting 
vouchers

Hi erik,

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 03:06:59PM +, Erik Bais wrote:
> I asked the Executive Board during the GM, if it is possible to add a
> RIPE meeting voucher for the RIPE WG Chairs as compensation.

In many cases this won't benefit the Chair but merely their employer.
I'm not sure this is a good idea, and brings administrative burden for
no tangible gain. I'm not in support of such a policy change.

How about chairs get to cut the line for coffee? ;-)

Kind regards,

Job





**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

Re: [ripe-list] Follow up on the Dubai AGM - RIPE WG Chair meeting vouchers

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list]

+1


Regards,
Jordi

-Mensaje original-
De: ripe-list  en nombre de Stuart Gilbertson | 
Consider IT Limited 
Fecha: jueves, 18 de enero de 2018, 18:14
Para: Sander Steffann 
CC: RIPE List 
Asunto: Re: [ripe-list] Follow up on the Dubai AGM - RIPE WG Chair meeting 
vouchers

> It would however show some appreciation and recognition for all the work 
the chairs do in their spare time, and I think my fellow working group chairs 
deserve that.

Agree 100%.



All the best,
Stuart

Stuart Gilbertson
Consider IT Limited
Superior IT Support

www.considerit.co.uk 
0131 510 0110

Please Note: This e-mail and any files that may be attached to it are for 
the named person's use only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or 
legally privileged information and is strictly confidential.
If you receive this message in error, please immediately delete it and all 
copies of it from your system, destroy any hard copies of it and notify the 
sender by replying to this message. In the event that you are not the intended 
recipient, you must not directly or indirectly copy, print, or otherwise 
disseminate this message in full or in part. 
Consider IT Ltd takes reasonable steps to ensure that our e-mails are 
virus-free, and in any event, accept no liability, either for any alterations 
made to this e-mail by third parties, or any viruses that it may contain, 
howsoever arising. 
Consider IT Ltd reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications 
through its networks.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, 
except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state 
them to be the views of any such entity.




On 18 January 2018 at 17:10, Sander Steffann  wrote:

Hi Erik,

As I'm stepping down as a chair next meeting I have no benefit from this, 
so I think I can speak without any conflict of interest.

> The only ‘benefit’ of picking up the WG Chair hat … is a WG Chair lunch 
somewhere during the RIPE meeting

You mean that lunch that chairs use to do work for the community instead of 
talking to their customers/friends/etc ;)

> I asked the Executive Board during the GM, if it is possible to add a 
RIPE meeting voucher for the RIPE WG Chairs as compensation.

Considering that being a chair involves work (depending on the working 
group it may be a different amount, but all chairs do work and have 
responsibilities) and that the ticket price is only a smaller part of the total 
cost (flights, hotel etc cost more than the meeting ticket) I think it would be 
a nice token.

I don't think this will make people dependent on the NCC as Jim fears, or 
that people will suddenly become chair just to get a relatively small discount 
on the total price of traveling to and attending a RIPE meeting, or that it 
would influence how the working groups select their chairs in any other way.

It would however show some appreciation and recognition for all the work 
the chairs do in their spare time, and I think my fellow working group chairs 
deserve that.

Cheers,
Sander











**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.