Re: [ripe-list] New on the RIPE Labs Podcast: Frugal Computing for a Sustainable Internet
> On 1 Nov 2023, at 12:54, Farzaneh Badiei wrote: > > Seriously Jim, you call this "spyware"? Really? Yes. IMO anything that harvests Personal Data is spyware, more so when there is no valid reason to gather those data. Clearly, our definitions of spyware are different. Get over it. RIPE is a diverse community with all sorts of different and sometimes conflicting opinions on just about everything. That’s a very healthy and welcome thing IMO. -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list
Re: [ripe-list] New on the RIPE Labs Podcast: Frugal Computing for a Sustainable Internet
> On 1 Nov 2023, at 08:55, Gert Doering wrote: > > And indeed, why should a website process my personal data when I only > want to view a RIPE labs article? And, for bonus points, why is RIPE content encumbered by spyware? -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list
[ripe-list] discussion time at RIPE meetings
> On 1 Jun 2023, at 11:06, Lars-Johan Liman wrote: > > Mailing lists have some very good properties, but face2face interaction > has other good properties to offer. We need both. Indeed. As Rob Blokzijl repeatedly said, we have RIPE meetings (=> discussion), not RIPE conferences (=> listening to presentations). FWIW I'd like to see more interaction and discussion during the sessions. Though I realise that's difficult in a room of 600+ people - more so when 3-4 Old Farts hog the mike. PS: Apologies for using a meaningful and relevant Subject: header. It would be nice if we all did that and also kept it in mind for the conversations about electronic discussion tools. Maybe this is an appeal to re-invent netnews. :-) -- 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 Future of Discussion Lists
> On 26 May 2023, at 13:11, Alex Band wrote: > > Looking at the people who replied to this thread so far, this discussion > appears to have all the makings of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Gert, Jim, > Joe… All people I’ve known for over a decade or more in the RIPE Community, > saying on a mailing list that they prefer email. :) Well, I did say these sorts of discussions end up going in circles. :-) -- 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 Future of Discussion Lists
> On 26 May 2023, at 08:41, Leo Vegoda wrote: > > - Am I wrong? Are e-mail discussion lists a sustainable communication > channel for the foreseeable future? Yes and yes. IMO. > - Are e-mail discussion lists an acceptable technology to people > joining the industry? Yes. IMO. Email has the lowest barrier to entry and imposes no meaningful requirements on the end user other than an ability to type in English using the email client of their choice. There's no reliance on proprietary protocols or platforms. These key points need to be remembered. In my view, chasing after the latest shiny here today, gone tomorrow fad would be unwise. [Once upon a time, myspace was a thing.] Or adopting some proprietary platform. Or ending up with a platform that gets assimilated by a tech behemoth or imposes limitations on community-generated content. Some of us remember the Slideshare debacle ~15 years ago. The intention was to make stuff from RIPE meetings "more available" - for some definition of that term. However the company's T&Cs meant they asserted IPR on anything that was uploaded and you agreed to accept their spam. Advocating change is all very well. But be careful what you wish for because you might just get it. And then find there are unintended and/or unforseen consequences. It can be helpful to have discussions about from time to time topics like this. Periodic reviews are welcome and I support that. However I think these discussions need to be grounded in objective data: clear problem statement, requirements, use cases, etc. If not, we'll end up with a circular debate -- "My opinion is right", "No it's not." etc -- that goes nowhere. We're engineers - allegedly. So let's define/agree a problem statement first so we can figure out what options could be used to fix whatever is broken. -- 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] Community feedback on EU Cyber Resilience Act proposal
> On 17 Jan 2023, at 12:56, Suzanne Taylor wrote: > > In addition to our own impact analysis, we’d like to highlight the fact that > we’ve also heard feedback on the proposal from within the RIPE community. > I’ve drafted a summary of that feedback below, which we intend to include in > our submission to the European Commission. Excellent job Suzanne (and your colleagues)! -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list
[ripe-list] what is the new CoC intended to fix?
> On 14 Sep 2022, at 20:53, Vesna Manojlovic wrote: > > Many *women* leave tech industry because of abuse, or micro-aggressions. > We are missing out on the contributions by persons of color, young people, > "people with thin skin"... With respect Vesna, these problems *cannot* possibly hope to be fixed with RIPE's Code of Conduct. Or anyone else's CoC for that matter. The concerns you raise are of course very real. However they are complex and have too many structural/societal/cultural causes that are both out of scope and far beyond RIPE's capabilities. For instance, the lack of women in the tech industry probably originates from few women/girls following STEM subjects at school and further education. So the tech sector starts from a bad bad place and inevitably goes downhill from there. Sigh. And hey, both of us are persons of colour too - as are the other ~7B people on this planet. A better way for RIPE to make a difference here might be to require a more diverse and representative presence across the board: presenters, PC & TF membership, WG co-chairs, etc. That IMO would have more tangible results than fine words and fancy processes around some CoC. Maybe you disagree. But that's to be answered for both of us with an objective evidence-led approach rather than going by gut feel or best guesses. I am both surprised and very disappointed that you (or the TF?) seem to want to the CoC to fix these deep-seated and complex problems. Which are for society in general, not RIPE IMO. The CoC is supposed to deal with bad behaviour* at RIPE meeting - no more, no less. There is nothing in the existing or proposed new CoC's remit which deals with the issues you mentioned. So I don't understand how or why they have somehow become topics for the CoC or the various task forces to address. Please explain. If the new CoC's authors/supporters have other intentions or aspirations beyond dealing with bad behaviour at RIPE meetings, IMO they need to be far more transparent about those objectives. That would mean a radically different TF charter and a far clearer problem statement is needed. And for bonus points, the final output from the TF (or whatever) needs to show how their work fixes that problem or problems. * The correct word here is "behaviour", not "behaviours". Behaviour is a mass noun which does not get pluralised. So is the word "aggression". Or is this sort of language pedantry about to be classed as a CoC violation? -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list
Re: [ripe-list] Russia
> On 15 Aug 2022, at 09:03, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > > > Yes, and as I think I've already made plain, I don't care about the official > response of RIPE. In that case, take your whines somewhere else. This list is for general discussion about RIPE matters. But since you don't care about that, you're clearly posting to the wrong place. And since you don't care about RIPE (NCC)'s response, you've no reason to expect anyone here to care about what you have to say. > You really just aren't getting this are you? No, it's you who really isn't getting this. For starters, you don't seem to understand the difference between RIPE and RIPE NCC. Or how to get "policy" changed in these two fora. For RIPE, submit a policy proposal and put it through the PDP. For the NCC, members can ask for agenda time and/or propose a resolution at the AGM. Second, invoking Godwin's law or "won't anyone think of the children?" rhetoric is unhelpful. That usually means the proponent has lost the debate and can't make a reasoned case for their PoV. Third, you've given no indication why RIPE (NCC)'s stance is unsatisfactory or what could be done to make it better. For some definition of better. If you have *constructive* proposals on what RIPE or the NCC could do in addition to the current sanctions, please make them. RIPE's PDP is open to everyone. The NCC's members are free to propose resolutions at the *GMs. Start with a clear problem statement and then show how your proposal(s) will fix it. IMO it's highly unlikely that a bunch of Internet geeks wagging their finger at Mr. Putin and putting him on RIPE's naughty step will make any difference to his ugly war in Ukraine. Let's face it, the international sanctions that are hurting Russia and Putin's cronies haven't made a difference. Rather indulge in virtue-signalling, I think all of us could do far more good by helping refugees or contributing to relief efforts or putting pressure on our politicians to put more pressure on the Kremlin to stop the carnage. Or any combination of these three things. -- 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] LIR and Member Agreements
> On 31 Jan 2022, at 21:15, Gert Doering wrote: > > I find the use of the Code of Conduct as a tool to suppress criticism > *on documents* very much inappropriate. > > This is not making *me* feel "safe and included". +gazillions Hans Petter’s comments were ill judged and grossly inappropriate. -- 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] Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review
> On 12 Apr 2021, at 14:16, Erik Bais wrote: > > In the document, there is no mention of unwanted behaviour / attention that > could be classified as stalking. IMO, that’s not a bug. It’s a feature. The CoC should just talk about inappropriate behaviour as a general concept and not attempt to enumerate every possible type of inappropriate behaviour. That way lies madness... The current draft has an illustrative (non-definitive) list of unacceptable behaviour and that should be good enough. BTW, the CoC should say “behaviour” not “behaviours”. According to the grammar police, behaviour is a mass noun -- like traffic, health, fairness, nonsense, etc -- and therefore doesn’t get pluralised.
Re: [ripe-list] [diversity] Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review
> On 26 Mar 2021, at 16:55, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list > wrote: > > Common sense for me is on the other way around. Jordi, your opinions about what is and isn’t common sense are inappropriate for the ripe list. Please take them elsewhere. Perhaps you could set up a task force to discuss this.
Re: [ripe-list] [diversity] Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review
> On 24 Mar 2021, at 13:09, 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. This has to be paramount in any framework that handles these issues.
Re: [ripe-list] [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE AA-WG discussion
> On 22 Feb 2021, at 17:23, Cynthia Revström via ripe-list > wrote: > > Once again I could be wrong, and if I am, I am sorry, but I can't see how > this isn't marketing. Cynthia, PLEASE don't compound the problem by circualting the marketing material to the RIPE list.
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE WG Chairs Selection and Terms
> 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.
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE WG Chairs Selection and Terms
> On 12 Feb 2021, at 11:26, Martin Winter wrote: > > I'm prefer to find a solution without limits on terms. IMO, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution to this issue. It’s unwise (and probably impossible) to try to create one. WGs should be left to decide for themselves what works best for them. Sometimes, that’ll mean term limits. Sometimes it won’t. Not all WGs are the same. And for a few of them, continuity will be far more important than other considerations. There should of course be a healthy replacement of WG leadership: enough to ensure things don’t get stale but not so much that continuity or institutional memory gets lost. That balance and those trade-offs will be different in each WG. Which is why each WG should get to decide how they handle this. Term limits in some WGs like DNS or IoT are fine IMO. For WGs like Coop or AA (say) who interact more with the authorities, not so much. We should also think very, very carefully before imposing policies top-down. RIPE, like most Internet institutions, has always used bottom-up policy development. It should stick with that model because it produces the best outcomes.
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Working Group Chair Collective Meeting Summary
> 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.
[ripe-list] consensus defintions
> 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.
Re: [ripe-list] repeated and continued PDP violation - WG chairs delaying or denying proposal publication - new policy proposal "Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure"
> 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.
Re: [ripe-list] repeated and continued PDP violation - WG chairs delaying or denying proposal publication - new policy proposal "Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure"
> On 7 Feb 2021, at 21:46, Sander Steffann wrote: > > 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. +1000 signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: [ripe-list] a proposal to change the PDP
On 8 Feb 2021, at 10:40, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote: > > 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. That statement of the bleedin’ obvious is irrelevant to the matter in hand. FWIW I didn’t even suggest RIPE was above the law. Because it isn’t. I said you (and everybody) else should think very carefully about the consequences of turning RIPE into a lawyer-fest. In case you don’t understand that term, here’s a rough definition: having lawyers draft and negotiate all RIPE processes and procedures, mandatory judicial review for any document changes, all communication in WGs gets done through our respective lawyers, judges making consensus determinations, etc, etc. > We can't decide in RIPE, that we will not allow blond hair people to > participate. True. However in extreme cases we can ban people for various forms of misbehaviour or abuse - regardless of the colour of their hair. No matter. Can we please get back to a discussion of your deeply broken (and hopefully doomed) policy proposal?
Re: [ripe-list] a proposal to change the PDP
> 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.
[ripe-list] a proposal to change the PDP
> On 7 Feb 2021, at 13:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list > wrote: > > I attach the proposal I do not support this proposal. It is nonsense. It would add more procedural bloat, needless complexity and extra unwanted bureaucracy*. RIPE doesn’t deserve or need something like this. There’s no justification for it either. 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. * Just think of endless opportunities for shed-painting and rat-holing over how this supposedly independent and disinterested appeals panel gets selected, its terms of reference, standing orders, what happens mid-appeal if the entire panel disappear in a mysterious boating accident, decision-making when the panel can’t reach consensus, etc, etc. For bonus points, what structure has to be put in place to handle appeals about how this panel made its decisions or how its members were appointed. Where would all this craziness stop?
Re: [ripe-list] repeated and continued PDP violation - WG chairs delaying or denying proposal publication - new policy proposal "Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure"
> On 7 Feb 2021, at 22:04, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list > wrote: > > I agree that the chairs may decide that it may be "out of the scope of the > WG", but nothing else. Deciding something's “out of scope for the WG” can be a diplomatic way to avoid embarrassing the proposer(s). WG cochairs have the discretion to exercise that sort of common sense. Which doesn’t need to be written down the Big Book of RIPE Rules.
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Working Group Chair Financial Support call for consensus by 15 June 2020
> On 4 Jun 2020, at 15:44, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: > >> Full disclosure: Axel and Rob kindly waived the meeting fee for >> me when my business was struggling ~10 years ago. My airmiles paid >> for travel and accommodation. > > You forgot to mention that that was while you were a WG-chair. True. Though I thought everyone would have known I was a WG chair at that time. It wasn’t a freebie just to hang out at the meeting. No matter. > I always thought that the ability of the RIPE chair to sponsor people > to the meetings included the WG-chairs so I'm wondering a bit why > they should be mentioned separately. That’s true. Though in the past, the RIPE Chairman could ask for the meeting fee to be waived whenever someone who lacked funding was making a significant contribution to the meeting. This didn’t extend to travel and accommodation. IIUC that element was added when the RIPE Fellowship thing (aimed at research students?) started.
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Working Group Chair Financial Support call for consensus by 15 June 2020
> On 4 Jun 2020, at 14:59, Joe Abley wrote: > > People whose employers won't support them with time and salary (or > independent contractors who lose income when they can't work) are similarly > disadvantaged. Eliminating those disadvantages might add useful additional > perspectives to indviidual working groups and to the wg chair collective. > > I think providing this funding might well reduce those barriers to > participation. Your point is well made Joe. But I think it’s a bit misguided even if though it is well intentioned. In cases of genuine hardship, it’s reasonable to be able to offer some level of financial support as and when it’s needed. A mechanism where the RIPE Chairman (say) is able to apply some discretion and common sense seems the right way forward here. While I’m sympathetic to those who may be disadvantaged from volunteering, we need to be careful not to attract charlatans who just want to be a co-chair for the freebies. IMO it’s unreasonable to make that support the norm or for a co-chair to make a habit of relying on that support. That would be the start of a very slippery slope. For instance, it amplifies the recently expressed concerns about the NCC having undue influence over the RIPE leadership. perceived conflicts of interest, etc. Regularising this arrangement sets a precedent which could mean offers of support get extended further -- freebies for all presenters? -- that ultimately leads to the NCC paying for everyone to go to RIPE meetings. One issue here is where and how to draw the line. The current proposal says "in exceptional cases” and I think that’s more than good enough. Full disclosure: Axel and Rob kindly waived the meeting fee for me when my business was struggling ~10 years ago. My airmiles paid for travel and accommodation.
Re: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support
> On 28 May 2020, at 08:25, Andy Davidson wrote: > > Right now, they can't because the RIPE Chair and the Chair of this Committee > *work for the NCC*, and one reports to the other. Do you not see how this is > a governance problem, however accidentally derived? Yes or no? In the hypothetical abstract, yes. For the reality we're currently in, no. The WG Chairs recognised this ugliness when they made the pragmatic decision to choose Hans Petter as interim RIPE Chairman for a few weeks while he was also the NCC CEO. They took the reasonable common sense view that this was the least worst option for all concerned. It's a shame you do not seem to be able to accept that perspective. I frankly don't see how these reporting lines possibly matter for the current circumstances. The NCC CEO is not going to tell Daniel how to run the Nomcom or get it to reach a particular decision. And if they did try to do that, we can be sure Daniel would give a suitably robust response. So what are you *really* worrying about? What is the actual problem are you trying to fix? If there's the slightest suspicion that the lines of reporting will cause the Nomcom to deliver a tainted result, we can deal with that problem if and when we get to it.
Re: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support
> On 28 May 2020, at 06:58, Jim Reid wrote: > > changing RFC728. Damn autocorrect again! s/RFC/RIPE/ Sigh.
Re: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support
> On 27 May 2020, at 16:21, Andy Davidson wrote: > > If governance is improved by seeing the Community and NCC separation in the > work of our committees then let's have that improvement for THIS selection. > We can ensure this quickly (without even delaying the chair appointment) by > altering the constitution of those committees today Andy, that’s absurd - sorry. I’m stunned somebody with your levels of clue and community standing could make such a glib statement. Altering the constitution (composition?) of the Nomcom -- which is presumably one of “those committees” -- means changing RFC728. That will be a very slow and painful exercise. It will certainly not be quick and it definitely will delay the appointment of Hans Petter’s replacement(s). If you just meant shuffling the existing Nomcom membership (to displace non-voting NCC "insiders"?), that’s not sensible or justified either. You’ve already said you have confidence in the Nomcom members’ impartiality and sound judgement. So why make some of them wear different hats at this stage? Suppose none of the other Nomcom members are prepared to serve as its Chairman if Daniel is thought to be no longer acceptable in that role. What then? What if some of the Nomcom quit in disgust because of these shenanigans? Are these risks worth it?
Re: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support
> On 27 May 2020, at 16:43, Brian Nisbet wrote: > > I believe we should complete this process without making any changes or > having any pauses. I then believe, in line with what was already agreed, the > process should be reviewed and I have some suggestions for that review. I agree wholeheartedly with this. We have rough consensus for the current process. It should proceed as-is. Introducing a delay is not going to help. If anything, it will add unwelcome risks and uncertainties at this very critical point. The concerns that Nick and others have raised are reasonable in principle. But sadly they are not timely. Besides, there’s no (rough) consensus for adding a further delay or finding some other way to resolve these concerns. IMO that means the pragmatic approach is to continue with the current process and timetable. We can surely trust the Nomcom to have taken note of these concerns as part of their deliberations. So let them do their job. The appointment process will get reviewed after it has been run. That will be the appropriate time and place to consider these concerns and make whatever adjustments are thought necessary for the next time an appointment needs to be made.
Re: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support
> On 26 May 2020, at 16:00, Jim Reid wrote: > > if the Chairman of RIPE effectively becomes an employee of the FCC. Damn you autocorrect! s/FCC/NCC/
Re: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support
> On 26 May 2020, at 15:40, Kurtis Lindqvist wrote: > >> And imagine the conversations with their employer or family: “I’m going to >> take an unpaid full-time job for an unknown length of time while RIPE >> bickers. Hope that’s OK with you.”. > > I thought the RIPE NCC have said they would fund a (interim-) chair of RIPE? I don’t know or care Kurtis. I’m not an NCC member. Not that it matters. Most of the recent concerns that have been raised are about the perceived closeness of the Nomcom and candidates to the NCC, possible conflicts of interest, etc, etc. I doubt these are going to be eased if the Chairman of RIPE effectively becomes an employee of the FCC. Whether the Chairman gets paid or not is behind the point I was trying to make. So let me rephrase that earlier comment: "I’m going to take leave of absence for a full-time job as RIPE Chairman for an unknown length of time while RIPE bickers. Hope that’s OK with you.”. How do you think the LINX Board would react if you suggested something like that? I know how my employer - me! - would react.
Re: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support
> On 26 May 2020, at 09:49, Sander Steffann wrote: > >> Jim, you then go on to quote directly from RFC7282 which says very clearly >> that the concerns DO need to be addressed. > > Jim quoted it the wrong way around: concerns have to be addressed, but not > accommodated. Correct. You all know what I meant anyway: we already have rough consensus for the status quo. Thanks Sander. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support
> On 26 May 2020, at 10:10, Erik Bais wrote: > > I hope that we don't Runout-runout of Interim Interim RIPE Chairs before we > complete this Those who are raising concerns need to think *very* carefully about the consequences of introducing these (unnecessary IMO) additional risks and uncertainties at this late stage. A runout-runout of interim-interim RIPE Chairmen is just the tip of the iceberg. Here are some of the others: 1) Derailing a community-agreed process *while it is under way* because a few people don't like the initial outcomes sets a very ugly and dangerous precedent. More so when they said nothing at the time when each of those agreed milestones had been reached and there were opportunities to comment on them. 2) Appointing another interim RIPE Chairman is the responsibility of the WG Chairs, a group that is dysfunctional at taking decisions. How long will it take them to make their mind up? Assuming they can find people who would be willing and capable of performing in that role. Which is yet another big risk/uncertainty. 3) Knowing the prevailing circumstances, who would choose to step into this mess and serve as interim RIPE Chairman? And imagine the conversations with their employer or family: “I’m going to take an unpaid full-time job for an unknown length of time while RIPE bickers. Hope that’s OK with you.”. 4) Pausing (or whatever) the current process effectively tells the Nomcom they don’t have the community’s confidence. If I was on the Nomcom, I’d quit if that happened. I wouldn’t want to be considered as a replacement for anyone who did quit either. What do we do when good people walk away from the Nomcom and/or decline to replace those who did? 5) Pausing (or whatever) the current process effectively tells the current candidates they don’t have the community’s confidence. One way or another they’re being told they’re not “good enough”. If I was one of them, I’d withdraw. What do we do when excellent candidates walk away? What happens if nobody else comes forward? Remember they’ll have seen how dreadfully the current candidates have been treated. Who’d choose to go through that? 6) What happens if more candidates do come forward during this pause and they turn out to be unsuitable too? [For some definition of unsuitable.] Do we pause again (and again) until we come up with a mix of candidates that gets near-unanimous approval? And what do we do in the interim? Are these risks and uncertainties worth it? I don’t think so. Gert summed up the situation very well: > We do have a good set of very talented and widely recognized nominees. > > Would it be good to have a wider selection? Maybe. > > Have all these other people of talent come forward and volunteered? No. > > What shall we do?
Re: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support
> On 25 May 2020, at 23:42, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > The concerns that were raised on the ripe-chair-discuss mailing list haven't > been addressed. > > Rather than prompting for a mandate to "just get on with it", these issues > need to be addressed. With all due respect Nick, no they don’t. The concerns you and others have raised have been heard. They don’t have to be addressed. They’ve been accommodated. It’s been explained why it’s both impractical and unreasonable to address those concerns at this time. Or to pause the current process until such time as they could be addressed. Those who disagree with that assessment are welcome to raise their concerns with the NomCom. After all, the people raising these concerns have said that they are not questioning the integrity or judgement of either the Nomcom or the candidates. So in that case, the Nomcom and candidiates should be left to get on with the job they *volunteered* to perform. Or are they not to be trusted after all? If the Nomcom can be trusted, raise these recent concerns through the appropriate channel and let the Nomcom decide what to do about those concerns since we can be sure they’ll do The Right Thing. It’s that simple. If the Nomcom can’t be trusted, we have to blow up the appointment process -- good luck getting consensus on a new one -- and then be forced to make even uglier decisions about how to appoint a temporary replacement who may well be left dangling for years. FWIW it took 4 years to get consensus on the current selection process and start implementing it. Does anyone *really* want to start all that again? Remember that the current process is not cast in stone. It can (and very probably will) get revised in light of the lessons learned from the first time it’s been tried. That will be the proper time and place to address these recent concerns. Please note these were raised long after the train had left the station. We’d reached consensus on how Hans Petter’s successor was to be appointed and put that process into effect. Unwinding it now is not a good look at all. IIUC RIPE uses the RFC7282 definition of consensus. That means we have rough consensus that the current appointment process with the current NomCom and current pool of candidates can go ahead as-is. To quote from RFC7282: 3. Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated ... Often, a working group will encounter an objection where everyone understands the issue and acknowledges that it is a real shortcoming in the proposed solution, but the vast majority of the working group believes that accommodating the objection is not worth the tradeoff of fixing the problem. Though for us s/working group/RIPE community/ Oh and in case there’s any doubt, I say to the Nomcom - just get on with it.
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE80 and COVID-19
> On 2 Mar 2020, at 21:34, Gordon Lennox wrote: > >> I know first hand that the RIPE NCC and the RIPE Chair are in the process of >> updating the risk assessment for RIPE80 and evaluating options. > > Lucky you. But maybe the community could now also participate in the > conversation? That’s a remarkably bad idea Gordon. This community has great trouble agreeing on the paintbrushes to use for its shed-painting activities. [And as for the type and colour of the paint] If we were epidemiologists or experts in flu vaccines or could predict the future with perfect accuracy, that sort of community input could be useful. But we’re not. So it isn’t. It should be enough for now to know that the meeting organisers are making a risk assessment and will inform us in due course when there is something to report. This is not really any different from how the community doesn’t get involved in the RIPE meeting logistics and leaves that to people who understand the subject. I see absolutely no value of any sort in having the community participate in those sorts of conversations.
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE80 and COVID-19
> On 2 Mar 2020, at 18:33, Elmar K. Bins wrote: > > In all honesty? There are a lot more flu infections (and more deaths, every > single year), so...why the fuss? IIUC one of the concerns is Covid19 is much more effective at infecting people than regular flu. While it may not be much of an issue if a few RIPE people get infected, they may well infect other (more vulnerable?) people when they return home. Assuming someone spreads coronavirus ar RIPE80. That sort of calculation will presumably be part of the risk assessment which I expect the NCC will carry out in due course. It's not just a question of "can people get sick at RIPE80?". A bigger question is "will RIPE80 be a vector to spread coronavirus?". I agree the risks (hype?) may well be over-stated. However we have a duty to be responsible and take proper account of the advice from the public health authorities.
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE80 and COVID-19
> On 2 Mar 2020, at 17:52, Antonio Prado via ripe-list > wrote: > > I know that RIPE NCC is looking into all possible effects it could have > on RIPE80, but it's time to rationally start talking about that and let > participants take consequent decisions with awareness and in advance. RIPE80 is more than two months away. By then it's highly likely the virus will be contained or else we'll all be dead. So either way it won't matter much. :-) Current WHO advice is for meeting organisers to consult with the local public health authorities and carry out a proper risk assessment. This has lead to a variety of responses. Next week's ICANN meeting has effectively been cancelled. It's to go ahead with remote participation only. IETF107 is still going ahead as planned - for now anyway. Switzerland has banned mass gatherings of 1000+ people. The Geneva Motor Show has been cancelled. Yet it's business as usual for ITU meetings. Several companies have imposed a tenporary ban on international travel. As for RIPE80, you're right to suggest we all have to apply common sense by taking account of the risks, local policies and the prevailing circumstances at the time. These may well lead to different conclusions. I'm sure the NCC will keep us all updated in due course. signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
Re: [ripe-list] Towards a more inclusive community
> On 21 Oct 2019, at 09:20, Brian Nisbet wrote: > > And, of course, as Hans Petter points out, it's already in there, v3.0 of the > CoC actually gives more clarity around the process for invoking it. The “we’ve always done that” argument is not progressive or open-minded or receptive to change. The TF need to consider other options. A range of sanctions are possible. It would be good to know what ones were discussed by the TF and why they were accepted or rejected.
Re: [ripe-list] Towards a more inclusive community
On 17 Oct 2019, at 15:08, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > I would expect that RIPE should name and shame those harassing people at > meetings. Naming and shaming may not be the best or most effective way to deal with idiots who behave inappropriately. I wonder too if we are capable of producing a legally watertight definition of harrassment which could underpin a naming and shaming approach. If I feel harrassed by someone (for some definition of harrassed), is that enough to name and shame? IMO shunning/banishing people seems to be more appropriate for a mediaeval cult and I hope we don't go down that path. Can we consider other ways of dealing with behaviour which is wrong?
Re: [ripe-list] Who will be the next RIPE Chair .... and Vice Chair ?
> On 17 Oct 2019, at 11:01, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > ... > I am happy to answer any further questions you may have. Thanks Daniel. Are the nominations sent to nominati...@ripe-nomcom.org anonymised? ie Is is just the nomcom who gets to see who was nominated by whom?
Re: [ripe-list] Call for consensus RIPE Chair & Vice Chair selection by Nominating Committee
> On 4 Jul 2019, at 11:17, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > > The discussion has now come to an end. There has been no > comments to the latest version during the more than four weeks > since the discussion at the RIPE meeting. > > It is time for me to call for consensus on > > The Chair Selection Process > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-chair-discuss/2019-May/000262.html > > The RIPE Nominating Committee > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-chair-discuss/2019-May/000263.html I support the process described above and am in favour of its adoption.
Re: [ripe-list] Endorsement of Afrinic board candidates
> 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?
Re: [ripe-list] https://www.ripe.net/ inappropriate javascript
> On 4 May 2019, at 16:39, Leslie wrote: > > Jim, I'm not sure if you've worked doing web development, but I agree > with Nick that you can get a lot of performance data from these > services (not just tracking or marketing) which is incredibly useful. AFAICT nobody’s disputing that Leslie. I simply question that gathering and analysing such data is worthwhile or appropriate for RIPE. After all we aren’t in the marketing business or running a social networking site (same thing really). > People visit websites with all sorts of combinations of browsers, > OS'es, and extensions -- and no matter how good of a test system you > have, you'll never be able to accurately predict each combination and > weird side effects will happen. All the more reason to avoid needless cruft that gets in the way of interoperability. Too many web designers seem to ignore this. It shouldn’t/needn’t be necessary to crunch through a raft of web analytics to learn that either. As my gran used to say, you don’t need to jump into the Clyde to find out if you’re going to get wet.
Re: [ripe-list] https://www.ripe.net/ inappropriate javascript
> On 3 May 2019, at 15:50, Nigel Titley wrote: > > I was using the term in the usual way ie it was not intended (cockup), > or it was intended (conspiracy). Will the diversity police allow us to use terns like “cockup” these days? :-)
Re: [ripe-list] https://www.ripe.net/ inappropriate javascript
> On 3 May 2019, at 13:30, Mirjam Kuehne wrote: > > We use Google Tag Manager to improve the browsing experience on > ripe.net. We have a lot of content, and with people using our website > for a range of different purposes, it helps us to check that our website > layout is fit for purpose. I don’t know what’s worse, the NCC intentionally using spyware or a respected senior member of staff parroting this sort of marketing bullshit. Was the NCC Services WG ever consulted about the use of things like Google Tag Manager? "improve the browsing experience” - really? This is not the sort of language I’d ever expect to find at RIPE. If the community is happy or unhappy with the web site, they are quick to tell the NCC. [See the current thread. QED.] There’s no justification or need to bring in toxic waste like Google Tag Manager* (or whatever) as an intermediary. And no, “everybody else’s web site is doing this” is not a valid excuse. * Once evils like this worm their way in, they metastasise and become impossible to remove. And more and more of our Personal Data get handed over to our google overlords without proper oversight or control. Nice.
Re: [ripe-list] https://www.ripe.net/ inappropriate javascript
> On 3 May 2019, at 11:47, Nick Hilliard (INEX) wrote: > > The RIPE NCC can't fix this issue, but it would be a good starting point to > note that the use of trackers raises deeply uncomfortable questions about > online privacy, with no clear answers. All the more reason for the NCC to keep well away. Perhaps we do need to have a formal policy on this issue.
Re: [ripe-list] https://www.ripe.net/ inappropriate javascript
> On 3 May 2019, at 11:47, Nick Hilliard (INEX) wrote: > > third party trackers allow incredibly detailed and useful telemetry > information to be collected about the performance and usage characteristics > of a web site, which provides invaluable feedback to the dev and mgmt team, > and without which it would be really hard for them to do their jobs. That may well be true for the oxygen thieves from planet marketing. However I fail to see how any of this guff is remotely relevant to the NCC, the people who oversee after our web site(s) or the broader RIPE community. If someone at the NCC needs to use spyware to do their job, they’re probably in the wrong job. There are plenty of openings at other places of business for people who want to sell adverts or analyse tracking data.
Re: [ripe-list] https://www.ripe.net/ inappropriate javascript
> On 2 May 2019, at 21:01, Cynthia Revström wrote: > > I would prefer to not have any third-party tracking scripts on ripe.net. +1. The NCC should not be entertaining any form of spyware. Ever. I’m astounded that it’s even necessary to state such a fundamental truth. If we’ve reached the point where this has to get written down, something has gone badly wrong.
Re: [ripe-list] Fwd: possible abuse case with our emails / spam from euromoney/capacitymedia
> On 6 Mar 2019, at 15:23, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list
> wrote:
>
> I don't agree. Sometimes courts/DPAs will not take cases in consideration if
> there is not an explicit reminder.
Maybe Jordi. But that depended on the pre-GDPR circumstances. We're all in a
*very* different environment now that GDPR is in force. Thanks to GDPTR there's
no need to say "don't misuse personal data" any more or put that on every
bloody email and web page. Any misuse of an EU citizen's personal data is a
violation now and it doesn't matter if there's a disclaimer or not.
This is all beside the point anyway. I repeat what I said before:
> 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.
And in the specific of the marketing scum who triggered this thread, I suggest
the NCC sends them a cease and desist warning in writing. FWIW I did that ~10
years ago when someone spammed dns-wg-ch...@ripe.net. The spam stopped. And I
assume the data harvesting that started it.
Next, we randomly insert a use-once bogus entry in the attendee list from time
to time. If someone spams that list, we can prove where they got the data from
and sue or prosecute them. This is what phone companies do/did with paper-based
directories. {Remember them?] If someone violates the (compilation copyright?)
IPR, these sorts of nonce entries provide the proof that's needed in court.
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.
Re: [ripe-list] some comments on the Accountability Task Force report
> On 12 Dec 2018, at 17:02, William Sylvester > wrote: > > Hi Jim, all, > > Just re-sending my earlier comments, which will hopefully be clearer to read. Thanks for that. >> First, the biggie. The report talks about how RIPE is accountable and who >> it's accountable to, it does not explain what RIPE is accountable *for*. I >> wonder if these considerations also need to be broken down and documented >> for various components of RIPE -- Chair, WG Chairs, WG Chairs Collective, >> Working Groups, Task Forces(!?), etc. The tables starting on p10 don't do >> that IMO. They describe the functional roles of these entities, not what >> they are accountable for or to who > When we sought feedback from the community, we were told that it was better > to avoid defining the scope of the RIPE community. This was briefly covered > in the report when we said this: > > "Although RIPE’s scope has never been officially discussed and agreed upon, > and may change as circumstances change, there is a general understanding that > there are limits to the issues and problems it can address. RIPE is not an > unlimited body just because a problem exists does not mean it is RIPE’s > problem to solve." (Page 6). This answers a different point (and one that seems to be out of scope) from the issue I raised. Sorry. I (naively?) assumed the TF would look at the various elements of RIPE -- as listed above -- and assess what they were accountable for and to whom. For bonus points the TF would determine if the accountability mechanisms for them were appropriate and satisfactory. And perhaps suggested improvements if the TF determined these were needed. IMO all of that's orthogonal to your answer about defining the scope of the RIPE community. I simply don't understand how "defining the scope of the RIPE community" fits with the above. Could you please explain? The scope of the TF could hardly have been clearer: The RIPE Accountability Task Force agreed to: • Review existing RIPE community structures, documentation and processes to ensure they are accountable and in alignment with RIPE values • Document existing RIPE community structures or processes where needed • Identify potential gaps where RIPE accountability could be improved or strengthened • Publish recommendations for the RIPE community • Identify areas where communications efforts or materials may be required There's nothing about defining the scope of the RIPE community that I can see. Or making that a constraint on the TF's work. > Similarly, when we discussed values, we were told that the community only > really had hard agreement on the procedural values (e.g. open, transparent, > bottom-up, consensus). With respect, that's another non-answer answer. Those values are also orthogonal to accountability. The principles of bottom-up consensus are fundamental. The issue is I think how these get exercised for the purposes of accountability. That's something I expected the TF would have considered. > We had thought this was more or less covered in the first part of the > document. However, perhaps this was only implied and we can take another look > to see if it needs to be stated more explicitly. Yes, I think so. The current document does not seem to align well (clearly?) with the TF's remit. >> Next, I strongly object to the recommendation that the process for selecting >> WG chairs should be aligned. This is out of scope for the TF. > > We take your point. However, we would suggest that just as there is a single > PDP that applies to all working groups, and a requirement that the > communitiy's policies are published as RIPE Documents - there are > accountability benefits from having consistency in some aspects. You can > still have a bottom-up community with a shared PDP. Yet again, this is answering a completely different question. WG Chair appointments are out of scope for the TF. How WG Chairs are accountable (and for what) are of course in scope. But not *how* they are appointed. Unless of course some WG uses a procedure which isn't transparent or violates our fundamental principle of bottom-up consensus. > With that being said, this was only a recommendation for the community to > consider. IMO this must be removed from the report. It's out of scope. The TF had no remit to consider this matter.
[ripe-list] some comments on the Accountability Task Force report
The TF are to be thanked for their hard work and producing a fairly good report. The explanation of consensus is excellent and long overdue. Well done for that. However I'm sorry to say the report misses a key point and also considers something that is out of scope and provides nothing to support that position. It also uses horrible American spelling in places -- center instead of centre -- but that's nit-picking. First, the biggie. The report talks about how RIPE is accountable and who it's accountable to, it does not explain what RIPE is accountable *for*. I wonder if these considerations also need to be broken down and documented for various components of RIPE -- Chair, WG Chairs, WG Chairs Collective, Working Groups, Task Forces(!?), etc. The tables starting on p10 don't do that IMO. They describe the functional roles of these entities, not what they are accountable for or to whom. Next, I strongly object to the recommendation that the process for selecting WG chairs should be aligned. This is out of scope for the TF. I fail to see how it fits with "potential gaps where RIPE accountability could be improved or strengthened", which is the closest vaguely suitable bullet point defining the TF's scope. Making that assumption still doesn't put the recommendation in scope because the reports says nothing about why or how aligning the selection process would improve or strengthen things. IMO, such a move would do the very opposite. Read on... I would have expected the role of the TF here would have been to verify (or not) that WG chairs were selected by fair, open and transparent processes that had broad WG/community support. And if there were problems, to identify them. All of that is missing. There's just a recommendation that seems to have been teleported in from a parallel universe without any context or explanation for its inclusion. In fact the report contradicts itself because it earlier states that aligning these procedures violates the principle of bottom-up decision-making. So why make that recommendation and where's the evidence to support it? Either RIPE has confidence in the bottom-up approach or we don't. If the bottom-up approach is unsatisfactory for deciding WG chair selection procedures (why?), what else at RIPE is it no good for? WG's are self-organising and autonomous. They decide their own charters, who the (co)chairs are, what documents and policies get developed, time-lines, consensus decisions, etc, etc. A top-down directive -- from whom? -- saying WG chair appointment procedures must be aligned goes against all of that. It will also undermine another key principle: diversity. [Admittedly that topic's out of scope for this Task Force.] The RIPE community should be perfectly comfortable that its WGs do things differently. That's a strength, not a weakness. Attempts to impose order on this "organised chaos" are the start of a slippery slope that leads to an institution that's in thrall to process. And look how those organisations turn out. A common appointment process is incompatible with RIPE's core values of WG independence, autonomy and diversity. Now it might happen that WGs may one day eventually converge on a common selection procedure -- my bet is some time after the heat death of the universe -- but that has to be a choice for each WG to make for itself. Without outside interference. IMO the TF has no role or authority to get involved in this. It does/did have a role to determine if the WG Chairs were appointed in an open and transparent manner and that the appointees were somehow accountable. Previous (top-down) attempts to have a common selection process have failed. IMO they always will. Getting WG consensus on any sort of selection process is already hard. I know. I've had to do it. Twice. I would prefer WGs spent their time and energies on productive work instead of bickering over process minutae that will just go on and on and on. It would be much less contentious for the report to say something like "The TF thinks a common WG chair selection process might be nice, but accept that has to be a matter for each WG to decide on its own by itself." But even that's pushing it. The evidence so far in favour of a common procedure is at best thin. It's certainly not found in the TF report. I also object to the use of the word "believe" in various places. That suggests a faith-based assessment rather than an evidence-based decision. Matters of belief have no place in RIPE documents.
Re: [ripe-list] weird T&Cs for RIPE meetings
> On 11 Oct 2018, at 15:22, Nigel Titley wrote: > > The badges for this meeting are being printed on Kevlar and will in fact > protect you from a shot to the heart. You are free to wear them in > whatever position you need, depending on what body part you value most. > As a Scot you may wish to wear it over your wallet... ;-) A wallet's that thing for holding banknotes and credit cards, isn't it Nigel? Why would a Scot have a need for such a device? :-)
Re: [ripe-list] weird T&Cs for RIPE meetings
> On 11 Oct 2018, at 15:24, Meeting wrote: > > There's always been an expectation that people will wear their meeting badge, > and this is consistent with most similar meetings. > > ... > In practice nothing has changed - this wording was used in the email we sent > ahead of RIPE 76 as well. Thanks Martina for the clarification. Perhaps this text could be softened for next time: "attendees are kindly requested to wear their badge during the meeting"? Saying badge-wearing is compulsory for security reasons seems heavy-handed. I don't remember language like that in any of the bumf for the other meetings I attend.
[ripe-list] weird T&Cs for RIPE meetings
Since there doesn’t appear to be a mailing list for RIPE77 attendees, this seems the most suitable place to raise the following. The lovely and efficient NCC meeting staff have sent me (and presumably everyone else) email about practical matters for RIPE77. It contains the following: "You are required to wear your badge during the meeting at ALL times for security purposes.” EH? What “security purposes”? I doubt this badge can protect me from terrorist attack or something dodgy from a nearby frikandel automat. Why are we required to wear badges at all times? When was this rule introduced and who took the decision? Is the next step to have badge goons policing who is allowed to get a coffee or go into the sessions? If a meeting hotel has some silly rule about wearing badges at all times, I would hope we could just say it’s the hotel that’s imposing this nonsense, not RIPE.
Re: [ripe-list] [ripe-chair-discuss] Proposal for a RIPE Chair Selection Process
> On 16 Jul 2018, at 14:29, Mirjam Kuehne wrote: > > The discussion will take place on the RIPE Chair Discussion mailing > list: https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-chair-discuss/ > > You can also leave comments directly under the RIPE Labs article (and > you don't need a RIPE NCC Access account for that). > > Should there be a need to relay comments from RIPE Labs back to the > discussion list, I will take care of that. Many thanks Mirjam. That clarifies things.
Re: [ripe-list] [ripe-chair-discuss] Proposal for a RIPE Chair Selection Process
> On 16 Jul 2018, at 09:05, Mirjam Kuehne wrote: > > Based on community discussions, including a recent plenary session at > RIPE 76, we've developed a proposal for the RIPE Chair selection > process. We are now seeking comments from you on a number of specific > elements Before commenting on the proposal, some clarifications are needed. Which comment forum prevails? Is it the RIPE List or the RIPE Chair Discuss List or is it some web page thingie? Will comments posted to ripe-chair-disc...@ripe.net (say) get relayed to that web page or not? And vice versa... Also, will it be mandatory to have a RIPE NCC Access account to post comments via that web form thing? If so, it seems very wrong to force a *RIPE NCC Access* account as a compulsory prerequisite for discussing RIPE business.
Re: [ripe-list] [ncc-announce] [news] New RIPE NCC Ticketing System and Contact Form
> On 28 Feb 2018, at 08:57, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > > It would be far more constructive if you could share what is not appropriate > in the privacy policy and why. Hans Petter, I thought I’d already done that by quoting extracts from that policy. In short, you are fodder for our marketroids (and those of our unnamed partners). We’ll use tracking cookies so advertisers can monitor you. We will spam you too. Oh and you agree your personal data will be thrown over the wall to unknown third parties. Have a nice day. [I lied about the last bit. :-)] NCC services and the NCC should not be party to any of that. I’m surprised this needs to be explained. Aside from that, I made a much more important point about outsourcing important functions to the cloud: what happens when the provider goes bust or changes their T&Cs or achieves lock-in?
Re: [ripe-list] [ncc-announce] [news] New RIPE NCC Ticketing System and Contact Form
> On 27 Feb 2018, at 22:29, Leslie wrote: > > A quick search would show zendesk is GDPR compliant Thanks Leslie. FWIW I ran away in disgust after reading the so-called privacy policy.
Re: [ripe-list] [ncc-announce] [news] New RIPE NCC Ticketing System and Contact Form
> On 27 Feb 2018, at 15:47, Matt Parker wrote: > > if a user submits unsolicited email attachments that are deemed to be > sensitive/confidential in nature, the RIPE NCC is able to redact these > documents, removing them completely from any third-party servers. Matt, this misses the point completely. IMO, nothing member-related should be getting stored or processed on third-party services. Ever. [Well, OK encrypted backups can be held off-site by a reputable provider.] What happens when $cloud-provider-du-jour goes bust or changes its T&Cs (all your data are belong to us) or does stuff to that data unknown to either the NCC or the member? Will it be possible to switch providers or bring it back in-house once the NCC’s finds out it’s been locked in? At the very least, there should have been a considered discussion about this in the NCC services WG (and the GM) before a decision was taken. Some stuff in Zendesk’s privacy policy is downright alarming: "Our Websites may contain links to other websites and the information practices and the content of such other websites are governed by the privacy statements of such other websites. We encourage you to review the privacy statements of any such other websites to understand their information practices.” "We and our authorized partners may use cookies and other information gathering technologies for a variety of purposes.” "Third parties with whom we partner to provide certain features on our Websites or to display advertising based upon your Web browsing activity.” "We collect analytics information. We may also share anonymous data about your actions on our Websites with third-party service providers of analytics services.” "We may use the information we collect about you (including personal information, to the extent applicable) for a variety of purposes, including to ... (e) send promotional communications, such as providing you with information about products and services, features, surveys, newsletters, offers, promotions, contests, and events; and provide other news or information about us and our partners. ... (f) process and deliver contest or sweepstakes entries and rewards; (g) monitor and analyze trends, usage, and activities in connection with the Websites and Services and for marketing or advertising purposes; ... (i) personalize the Websites and Services, including by providing features or advertisements that match your interests and preferences" "We may also obtain other information, including personal information, from third parties and combine that with information we collect through our Websites. For example, we may have access to certain information from a third party social media or authentication service if you log into our Services through such a service or otherwise provide us with access to information from the service.” "We share information, including personal information, with our third-party service providers” I can’t imagine why anyone would sign up to this or think it was culturally compatible with the membership and RIPE community. I wonder too how this US company intends to comply with GDPR. I am saddened that the NCC does not appear to have learned from past mistakes. Some years ago, the NCC tried to use some (here today gone tomorrow?) third-party Web2.0 cloud thing or other for storing and presenting RIPE meeting materials. There was no prior consultation. IIRC it turned out the provider asserted copyright/IPR over anything that was uploaded to their systems. They also imposed other conditions which would have made it impossible for some speakers to provide content.
Re: [ripe-list] Follow up on the Dubai AGM - RIPE WG Chair meeting vouchers
> On 18 Jan 2018, at 15:06, Erik Bais wrote: > > The only ‘benefit’ of picking up the WG Chair hat … is a WG Chair lunch That lunch is the same as the one everyone else at the RIPE meeting gets. The only difference is it takes place in another room while a discussion of WG Chair business and meeting coordination takes place. > 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. Anything's possible I suppose. However I don't support this suggestion. IMO it's a Very Good Thing that WG Chairs are unpaid volunteers. Giving them freebies from the NCC will change the dynamics: for instance the WG Chairs become (subliminally) dependent on the NCC. We might also see unsuitable people trying to become a WG Chair for the freebies rather than to serve the WG or wider RIPE community.
Re: [ripe-list] [comms] It's 2018, why are the RIPE hotels still using "booking forms"??
On 12 Jan 2018, at 16:43, Denesh Bhabuta wrote:
>
> Whilst I agree that we should be encouraging this, it is easier said than
> done to have the hotel companies apply this.
>
> ... explanation of meeting planner's hotel hassles snipped ...
>
> It is frustrating, but we are where we are. All we can do is try and
> encourage them to change… but in my experience over the last few years, that
> is not enough. I am unsure what else can be done.
I wonder if it's worth talking to the IETF meeting organisers? IIUC they use a
third party reservation service. {I forget its name.] On-line bookings "just
work" with the meeting and overflow hotels. IETF meetings are larger and more
frequent than RIPE meetings. So maybe that makes a difference.
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund 2017 Recipients
> On 22 Dec 2017, at 15:39, Alistair Strachan wrote: > > The RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund Selection Committee has reviewed the > applications and is happy to announce that the following seven projects have > be awarded funding for 2017: > > Congratulations: > > ... > - Tajikistan K-Root DNS Mirror Hmmm. An anycast root server instance doesn’t seem to be in scope for the Community Projects Fund. Surely a DNS server should have been paid for from a different NCC budget which is expressly for that sort of thing? IMO it’s a bad idea to intermix support for community projects with root server operations (or other routine NCC activities). This may well set an awkward precedent. Suppose an NCC department overspends its budget. Could they apply to the Community Projects Fund to balance the books? Now OK, it’s all ultimately funded by the one pool of NCC members’ money. But even so...
[ripe-list] oversight of the RIPE Chairman
There are two separate strands to Erik’s proposal so it’s best to split these into discrete threads. > On 24 Nov 2017, at 23:15, Erik Bais wrote: > > Dear RIPE community members and RIPE Exec Board, > The RIPE community currently doesn’t have its own Governing entity .. we say, > we are the community .. but the community doesn’t have its own entity. > > What I would propose, is to setup a separate entity … with a small separate > board. No. Emphatically not. This is a remarkably bad idea. [1] RIPE is not incorporated anywhere and has no legal identity, just like the IETF. This is deliberate. It’s also very, very important. RIPE can’t be sued or enter into contracts or get taxed or have to file audited accounts. Creating a governing entity would destroy that. [2] It’s far from clear what this new body’s board would do (or how) or how they’d be appointed. Trying to clarify these issues will open up zillions of rat-holes and provide endless opportunities for shed-painting. These may well never get resolved. [3] It’s not clear at all what problem(s) this new body would solve. Or if those problem(s) are worth solving. Or how the new body would/could/should be better than what we already have. Which IMO is working just fine, is not broken and doesn’t need fixing. [4] Creating this new board will create unnecessary process bloat, new prospects for mission creep (budgets, general meetings, etc) and even more sclerotic decision making. Remember the golden rule of every bureacracy is to ensure its continued existence. The best (only?) way to stop that is not create the bureaucracy in the first place. [5] The community should simply just appoint the RIPE Chairman (and vice Chairman?) and trust them to get on with it. Our Dear Leader doesn’t need to be overseen by yet another committee => more bureaucracy => yet another baroque temple to procedures/process.
Re: [ripe-list] Proposal for a full-time position for the RIPE Chair
> On 24 Nov 2017, at 23:15, Erik Bais wrote: > > Dear RIPE community members and RIPE Exec Board, > > As proposed during the GM in Dubai, I would like to discuss if it is possible > to change the Chair position of RIPE into a full-time paid position. I have mixed feelings about this. I think the post could be a paid one, but perhaps on a part-time rather than full-time basis. Chairman of RIPE takes up a lot of time and it doesn’t seem right that whoever has that position needs to rely on the goodwill of their employer if they happen to have a day job. This could also diminish the pool of candidates to pick from whenever there’s a vacancy: only those with a generous and supportive employer need apply. Or when the ideal choice is able to arrange unpaid leave from $dayjob, they’d need compensation for that loss of income. So maybe this is where NCC support could help. I also think we’re well past the point where certain leadership responsibilities can expect to be operated on a volunteer, best-efforts basis. [This is true across the Internet sector, not just at RIPE. Someone here mentioned the IETF’s Area Directors for example.] We need to adapt as circumstances change. The RIPE community today is a very different thing from what it was in its early days. The role of a volunteer, unpaid Chairman we had back then might well be unsustainable now. On the other hand, this approach further blurs the boundaries between RIPE and RIPE NCC. That’s probably a bad thing. It will also create conflicts of interest. Suppose the RIPE Chairman has to ask the NCC to do something that the RIPE community has agreed but isn’t fully accepted the NCC membership. Imagine the difficulties at the NCC AGM, assuming the RIPE Chairman was allowed to attend: “Why are we paying your salary to propose stuff we don’t accept?”. If the NCC pays the RIPE Chairman’s salary, this will create undesirable opportunities for the NCC membership to interfere and micro-manage. For instance demanding the RIPE Chairman obeys or is somehow accountable to the NCC membership instead of the RIPE Community. That could get awkward even when the NCC membership and RIPE Community are in violent agreement about everything. We should think *very* carefully before going down that path. Turning this into a paid position is likely to attract unwelcome candidates for the job. ie They want to become RIPE Chairman for the lavish salary and fine dinners rather than to represent the interests of the RIPE community. This will be even more of a concern if we end up making the mistake of using elections to appoint Hans Petter’s successor. Perhaps the best approach here would be a lightweight mechanism like the one available to ICANN board members: another volunteeer position with very demanding commitments. Stipends are available to board members who ask for them. These payments cover (part of) the salaries from their dayjobs and ICANN gets board members who in theory are able dedicate enough of their time to those duties. That way, board members are not limited to those who have understanding employers that can underwrite their employee’s ICANN board duties. IIUC not all ICANN board members get paid by ICANN. Maybe we could try something similar?
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE 75
> On 18 Oct 2017, at 23:53, William Sylvester > wrote: > > 1. Do you think the "public benefit" or "the greater good" is a core > aspirational factor in decisions made by the RIPE community? Alternatively, > are RIPE community members merely working/cooperating for their own benefit? > (If the community is only working for its own benefit, why have a last /8 > policy that benefits newcomers, for example). Depends. Sometimes "public benefit" can have unintended consequences. It's clear -- or should be clear -- the public benefit aspirations apply to stewardship of numbering resources. [But that is less of a concern now that address policy is essentially a no-op these days.] The aspiration would also apply to some outreach activities requested by the community: for instance engagement with law enforcement, regulators and governments. Obviously it also applies to running K and maintaining the database too. I'm not so sure the "greater good" argument holds up so well for other NCC activities since IMO they should probably be spun out from the NCC. > 2. There is no explicit obligation anywhere that the RIPE NCC will adhere to > policies developed by the RIPE community. Strictly speaking, the RIPE NCC is > accountable to its membership only. Does the community feel that the RIPE NCC > should make a declaration or perhaps sign an MoU stating that it will follow > RIPE community policies? This is a very, very silly idea. Sorry. 1) Who would/could sign that MoU with the NCC? The RIPE community has no legal identity (by design) so it cannot enter into a contract or any other quasi-legal agreement. 2) If a declaration like this was somehow legally enforcable, that will not help if RIPE develops policies which are opposed by the NCC membership or not in the membership's best interest. If we ever get into a scenario like that, a declaration or MoU is not going to make it easier to resolve the conflict. I think it'll make reconciliation harder. There would be endless meta-arguments about what the MoU means or intended rather than fixing the underlying problem. Add lawyers to taste. 3) Suppose RIPE develops a policy that instructs Axel to hand out €100 banknotes at Centraal Station until the NCC's reserves are gone. Should he do that just because this hypothetical declaration/MoU obliges him to do it? There's probably no need to formalise the NCC-RIPE relationship with anything more than a sentence saying "The NCC (Board) will take account of the policies developed by RIPE whenever it deploys and operates services". ie The NCC listens to RIPE but isn't compelled to obey no matter what. > 3. There is no definition of consensus as it is used within the RIPE > community. Is this something that is worth documenting? No. The dictionary definition should be enough. Failing that, there's RFC7282.
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE 75 - DTCM Requirements
> On 5 Jul 2017, at 15:12, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > 10 seconds in the microwave is enough to solve any RFID privacy problem. At what power and frequency settings? Since we’re mostly engineers here it’s important to get these implementation details right. :-)
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE 75 - DTCM Requirements
> On 5 Jul 2017, at 14:02, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > >> On 3 July 2017 at 18:38, Jim Reid wrote: >> >> It’s even stranger because when I was in Dubai for an ITU meeting (sigh) >> earlier this year, nothing was said (or done) about these DTCM requirements. >> Attendees were not bar-coded or obliged to hand over their Personal Data in >> advance. > > ITU is an international treaty organisation, so special rules may apply. Special rules didn’t seem to have been put into place for that earlier meeting. The hotel that hosted it didn’t know or care if I was an attendee. The immigration people at DXB didn’t either. There probably would have been no way for either of them to find that out. Assuming they wanted to. Which they didn’t AFAICT. > The ITU and UN meetings I have been to have had rather strict registration > and badge restrictions. How those organisations choose to run their meetings is an entirely different issue.
Re: [ripe-list] choosing locations for RIPE meetings
> On 5 Jul 2017, at 12:30, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > wrote: > > I’m fine with an overall decision of the “general principles for a meeting > location”, but is not that going to have almost the same difficulty for > reaching consensus? Has this been decided already? There is a document about > that? I don’t believe so. IIRC there have been discussions from time to time about producing such a document and they never went anywhere.
[ripe-list] choosing locations for RIPE meetings
> On 5 Jul 2017, at 11:50, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ > wrote: > > I think the community has the right to decide, when there are such kind of > special conditions, if we want to have a meeting there or not. Nope. The community can and should decide the general principles for a meeting host or location -- open to everyone, no bar-coding or DNA sampling of attendees, no excessive demands for Personal Data, decent flight connections, affordability, etc, etc. It’s then up to The Management to apply those principles when they choose a venue. The community can’t and shouldn’t interfere in such matters of implementation detail. Just imagine how hard it would be to get the RIPE community to reach consensus on where its meetings are held. If the numbers for RIPE75 are down or too many people complain about Dubai’s rules, I’m sure that will be remembered for the next time RIPE comes to the gulf region.
[ripe-list] coffee @ RIPE 75
> On 5 Jul 2017, at 09:41, Randy Bush wrote: > > to me, the critical question is availability of decent coffee. Decent coffee and desalinated water are mutually exclusive, so good luck with that. OTOH in Dubai anything is possible if you’re able to pay the asking price. I expect at least one of its hotels will have a fleet of gold plated Rolls Royces serving coffee that uses water sourced from Himalayan glacier ice that’s been towed to the gulf by dolphins. Or something.
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE 75 - DTCM Requirements
> On 3 Jul 2017, at 14:09, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > > I find the requirements "unusual" and not entirely "RIPE style" - to say > the least. Me too! It’s even stranger because when I was in Dubai for an ITU meeting (sigh) earlier this year, nothing was said (or done) about these DTCM requirements. Attendees were not bar-coded or obliged to hand over their Personal Data in advance. Mind you, the hotel demanded they photocopy my passport at check-in. Which is annoying enough. I wonder what would happen if a bunch of “tourists" turned up in Dubai and just happened to walk into the RIPE meeting? Will there be badge police at the door checking for bar-codes? This DTCM silliness is not compatible with RIPE meetings and I’m very disappointed that The Management has just accepted it.
Re: [cooperation-wg] IANA Review Committee Selection Process - RIPE Community Support
On 15 Sep 2015, at 18:26, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > I suggest that we appoint the two community-elected NRO Number Council > representatives as our representatives to the Review Committee. The third, > non-voting member of the Review Committee, who will be a RIPE NCC staff > member, would then be appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board. > > I believe that this is a straight forward and efficient proposal that would > avoid an extra election process. +1 Just do it!
