Re: [ripe-list] Mastodon for the RIPE Community

[Keith Mitchell]

On 4/29/24 05:57, Ulka Athale wrote:


We had two main questions with setting up our presence on Mastodon -
 whether we should run our own server, and whether this should be 
open to the community. Running our own server offers some benefits 
like greater control and the ability to set our own moderation 
policies. This, of course, comes with the need for RIPE NCC staff to 
invest time and effort in maintaining this server


We set up our own community/open Mastodon instance
 at DNS-OARC, and found both that running this is
fairly low-maintenance, and also that there are readily available
mastodon-as-a-service providers out there that can make it easier.

The OARC community is rather smaller than the RIPE one, however, so it's
possible that moderation and AUP etc issues may be more significant than
ours.

Overall we've found running our own server to be a positive so far, and
it's good to see RIPE having a Fediverse presence.

Keith

--

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] Routine Monitoring of Source Address Validation Deployment by Operators

[Keith Mitchell]

Dear Brandon,

On 4/26/24 11:25, Brandon Zhi wrote:

Recently, I've observed that although MANRS requirements mandate Source 
Address Validation(SAV) for its members, some operators have not fully 
implemented this practice in their networks. Therefore, I propose to 
routinely monitor the deployment status of SAV across ASNs to ensure 
compliance with MANRS guidelines and enhance network security. I am 
currently unaware of any existing projects with a similar focus.


See:

https://spoofer.caida.org/

Keith


--

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] PDP Appeals Process

[Keith Mitchell]

On 4/10/21 11:13 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:


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


Wearing my arbiter hat, I agree that some of the challenges you describe
here are not dissimilar from those encountered during the RIPE NCC
Dispute Arbitration process. While there's by no means a 100% solution
to them all there either (e.g. the risk of bad-faith use of the process
to clog things up), it's indeed possible some elements of the
arbitration process might be helpful to address points you outline.

If that is, reform of the PDP appeals process is the path chosen, which
I don't have enough familiarity with to have a view on.

Keith




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

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

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

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

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

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

[Keith Mitchell]

On 3/2/20 6:51 PM, Gordon Lennox wrote:

> For what it is worth I currently intend to be in Berlin. I have 
> penciled-in a check-point about 35 days out.

I think having a known check-point date for a go/no-decision for an
event is helpful, and that ~5 weeks ahead for this is a reasonable
lead-time for people to make decisions on international travel commitments.

And please, +1 to no "armchair epidemiology" on this list, let's leave
the risk assessments to professionals.

Keith

Re: [ripe-list] Discussion on financial support for RIPE Chair

[Keith Mitchell]

I too am inclined towards a variant of option 3.

- option 1 to me is simply too much heavyweight structure for a single-
  person role.

- option 2 I feel is exclusionary to otherwise well-matched candidates,
  and places the role at risk of capture by employer vested interests.

On 02/20/18 06:25, Malcolm Hutty wrote:

> Before leaping to conclusions, it might be worth kicking around
> ideas for how the risks identified in Option 3 might be mitigated.

Indeed, there ought to be models that would uphold the RIPE Chair's
autonomy and policy/editorial independence while still being funded by
the RIPE NCC. This might involve funding via long-term grant/endowment
commitments rather than annual budget revenue stream-derived salary,
fixed-term appointment, and/or other arms-length approaches along
Malcolm's suggestions.

It's very possible other organisations (not necessarily in our sector)
have already figured out models for such arrangements, and it may be a
good idea to research these for appropriate approaches.

Keith



> I agree think the risk of loss of independence is a valid concern we 
> should be wary about. I wouldn't agree with someone who was casually 
> dismissive of this as an issue. But Option 3 doesn't *have* to be
> "the RIPE Chair is employed at will by, and under the direct
> instructions of, the NCC". With care and thought, I am confident we
> can do better than that.

> The terms of this contract could in principle be designed to protect
> his independence from the NCC, and accountability to the RIPE
> community. The Chair will himself have an interest defending those
> terms.
> 
> For example, perhaps the contract could provide that it may not be 
> terminated by the NCC unless and until some RIPE community process
> has removed the person as Chair [*]. That might still require us to
> be a bit more clear what the process in the RIPE community for
> removal of the Chair should be, but it moves the locus of work to be
> done back into the community.