Re: [ripe-list] New on the RIPE Labs Podcast: Frugal Computing for a Sustainable Internet
Jim Reid wrote on 01/11/2023 13:09: Yes. IMO anything that harvests Personal Data is spyware, more so when there is no valid reason to gather those data. Jim, I'm puzzled as to why you've posted this on a public mailing list, where you have no idea who the recipients are and how they might be harvesting your personal data :) The RIPE NCC has a call to make about how to host content. Hosting podcasts on third party platforms gets wide distribution and frees up the NCC from the costs and overhead associated with self-hosting podcast content. Bear it in mind that in other forums, people are complaining about the RIPE NCC's expenditure. All podcost sites use cookies. The better ones are more up-front about it, and pop up banners before presenting content (+ cookies). Some will play the content while allowing users to reject "legitimate interest" as a basis for processing PII. This should improve in time in the parts of the world with GDPR (EU + EEA). "Legitimate interest" has traditionally been the basis for some of the more invasive tracking programs, but the CJEU ruled earlier this year that legitimate interest is an inadequate argument to track users using identifiers without the data subject's consent. In regard to consent, the GPDR is clear that consent means "consent, freely given". I.e. there should be no detriment if consent is not given, i.e. no more highwayman "consent or no content" choices. Nick -- 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
Tim Bruijnzeels wrote on 28/05/2023 18:54: [...] They are also archived, which helps this. the more fundamental issue here is whether the content should be self-hosted or hosted using a third party content hosting system. I.e. if the third party becomes unworkable or disappears entirely, what happens the content? Nick -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE NCC Executive Board Resolution on Provision of Critical Services
Bengt Gördén via ripe-list wrote on 02/03/2022 17:09: RIPE NCC is located in the Netherlands and is therefore subject to Dutch law. So if Dutch government enforces sanctions, RIPE NCC will have to comply with those decisions, right? yep, the RIPE NCC is legally obliged to comply with EU and NL sanctions lists. The RIPE NCC has a documented procedure for handling sanctions, and it doesn't appear that this situation is different. There's a list here: https://www.sanctionsmap.eu/ There's also an XML feed which is available for anyone who can log in with an eID. Nick -- 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] NomCom Disbanded - No More Blog
Joe Abley wrote on 26/05/2021 15:53: I think an archive of some kind might be useful for future reference. The mechanics of building an archive seems like the kind of thing the RIPE NCC is usually happy to take care of for RIPE community to me, but perhaps there are difficulties there I'm not aware of. The blog is already archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20210301124504/https://blog.ripe-nomcom.org/ Nick
Re: [ripe-list] [diversity] Updated Draft RIPE Code of Conduct Published for Community Review
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote on 26/03/2021 09:50: I can't agree with that: At this point, is there anything left that you do agree with? :) 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. 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@. 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? Nick
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 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
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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Nick
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Working Group Chair Financial Support call for consensus by 15 June 2020
Hans Petter Holen wrote on 04/06/2020 11:08: The proposal is modelled after the RIPE Fellowship program and can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/cc/ripe-working-group-chair-financial-support If there is consensus from the community on this I will do a formal request to the RIPE NCC for such support. this is basically a sound idea. Traditionally the RIPE community shied away from the idea of subsidising the event cost for both speakers and chairs on the basis that it was a community funded event, and that therefore the onus was on the community to contribute equally. But there isn't a fundamental problem with facilitating people who have difficulty raising the (often substantial) amount of money required to attend a RIPE meeting in person. All subject to reasonable policy, obviously. The RIPE Fellowship program shows how this sort of policy can work well and how it can add value for everyone. Nick
Re: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support
Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote on 27/05/2020 13:48: Are you suggesting that pausing or prolonging the process would make things look better? No, I'm suggesting we need a pause to allow time for good hard think about the circumstances, and whether we'd end up with a better or worse outcome if changes were made as a result of that. Nick
Re: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support
Gert Doering wrote on 26/05/2020 07:20: We have a document that tells us what to do. We do that. In the middle of the road, concerns are voiced that the document is not good enough - which might be a valid statement or not, but how should it affect the current process, given the simultaneously expressed support for all the persons involved? The problem is not with the process, or the document, and it is particularly not with the people involved. The problem is with the roles that some of the people involved in this process hold within the RIPE NCC, and the relationship between those roles. Specifically, the chair of the nomcom and one of the RIPE chair candidates are NCC employees who report to the RIPE NCC MD, who is also ad-interim RIPE Chair. We have a bottom-line expectation that the RIPE Chair is independent of the RIPE NCC, and this position has been expressed unequivocally by the nomcom. It is not tenable to hold this expectation and at the same time for the NomCom to be chaired by a RIPE NCC staff member, while one of the candidates is also a RIPE NCC staff member, and where the current RIPE Chair is the RIPE NCC MD. This situation was further complicated mid-process by the announcement that the RIPE Chair position would be funded by the RIPE NCC, thereby raising further questions about the ability of the RIPE Chair to maintain independence from the RIPE NCC. The timing of this announcement was also difficult, as it happened after the call for candidates was ended: this has likely cut out other people who may have been interested in the position but who could not afford to apply. The reality is that most people are simply not in a position to work on a free-gratis basis for several years at a time. If the NomCom follows through on the current trajectory, it will be difficult to defend against claims that the selection process and the resulting candidate were free from undue influence from the RIPE NCC. This will compromise the process, and the RIPE chair, and will raise questions about the RIPE Community's ability to govern itself. This would be unfortunate and unnecessary. As Erik Bais noted in a separate email, no-one is suggesting blowing up or restarting the nomcom or the process. I think generally people recognise and are sympathetic to the fact that this is a difficult, awkward and delicate situation for all, and particularly for the candidates. And also that it's a situation where external factors played a substantial part in forming. For the moment, the process needs to be paused. To move it forward: 1. if the positions of RIPE Chair and vice-Chair are to be paid, then the details of this need to be clarified, and if possible finalised, as soon as possible. Given that this is a fundamental shift in the position spec, there will either need to be a new call for applicants or a pretty clear justification about why this is not possible. As Gordon Lennox noted, sunk costs are not an adequate explanation. 2. The nomcom needs to consider whether people who are currently or have recently been working at the RIPE NCC at any level should be subject to timeout / grace periods to protect both the candidates and the position from suggestions of revolving doors. There's plenty of precedent and experience in this area of governance. 3. the RIPE community needs to understand whether the NomCom can continue to assert that the process is independent of the RIPE NCC given not just the individual impact of the issues raised, but also the cumulative impact of these issues. These are not easy questions to answer, or to remedy when they've been answered. Nick
Re: [ripe-list] The NomCom Requests your Support
Daniel, 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. Nick Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list wrote on 25/05/2020 15:44: Dear Friends and Colleagues of the RIPE community, If your feeling is something like "Oh no, not another long message from the NomCom! I wish they would just get on with it." you do not need to read further. It would certainly help us if you explicitly told us briefly to "just get on with it". Thanks Daniel -- From: Daniel Karrenberg - Chair of the RIPE 2020 Nominating Committee. To: Christian Kaufmann - Chair of the RIPE NCC Executive Board, Franziska Lichtblau - Chair of the RIPE Program Committee, Hans Petter Holen - RIPE Chair ad-interim & Chair of the RIPE WG Chairs, RIPE Community. Christian, Franziska, Hans Petter, Friends and Colleagues, The process to select two persons to succeed Hans Petter Holen as RIPE chair has been under way since September 2019. The NomCom has worked diligently to run the process that has been agreed by the community and codified in ripe-727 and ripe-728. We have called for nominees, canvassed when we had only one nomination and received four further nominations. We have dealt with the unforeseen withdrawal of Hans Petter. We have recognised the increased urgency that Hans Petter's resignation as RIPE Chair puts on the process by slightly tightening our time line without compromising on running an exemplary process. We have held three formal and two informal meetings, talked to the nominees by teleconference and received substantial input about all nominees from a diverse set of people in the community. We have kept the community informed by announcements on the RIPE mailing list, by providing a dedicated blog, by publishing complementary material on RIPE Labs, by reporting to the community plenary at RIPE80 and by talking about our work whenever the opportunity presented itself. Last week, during RIPE80, there were some calls from within the RIPE community to stop this process and start over. There also have been suggestions to issue another call for nominations and then continue as before. Since our mandate does not extend beyond executing the process along an agreed time line we are extremely reluctant to deviate from this unless we observe a clear and strong consensus in the community to deviate for the sake of pragmatism. We have discussed this extensively and decided against changing the planned time line because we see no such consensus. We also considered the consequences: Deviating from the plan at this time would put Hans Petter into the difficult position of having to work a new and demanding job next to filling the RIPE Chair ad interim role. This is too much to ask of anyone even without taking into account the recent discussion on ripe-chair-discuss. Hans Petter has told us that he accepted the ad-interim role on the assumption that we will finish our work on time and that he will likely have to resign if we take significantly longer than planned. Unfortunately during the RIPE 80 community plenary there has been no discussion that provides further guidance to us. It is difficult for us to assess whether this was due to the virtual format of the meeting, widespread agreement with what we have done so far or any other reason. We certainly expected those who had called for changes to the process earlier during the week to speak up and a discussion to take place that would provide further guidance for us. This has not happened. We have therefore decided to briefly pause our process and not to start candidate selection after RIPE 80 as originally planned. We have continued with preparations but have not started discussing the nominees among ourselves yet. We ask the RIPE NCC Board, the PC, the WG Chairs and the community at large to give us timely guidance on how to proceed. The question before us is whether we still have the support of the community to continue with the agreed process and time line or whether there is consensus in the community that we should do something different. We need this guidance now so that we can keep the delay in the time line as short as possible. We also ask the community as a whole to support us once we do proceed. Daniel Karrenberg, Chair, RIPE 2020 Nominating Committee
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE 80 Will Be a Virtual Meeting
Denesh Bhabuta via ripe-list wrote on 19/03/2020 17:36: Does anyone remember the specific passkey.com link which was used to book the accommodation? This is also the link to manage / cancel the booking. https://book.passkey.com/go/RIPE80 Also, the hotel can be contacted at: ber...@ihg.com. Nick
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE80 and COVID-19
Daniel Karrenberg wrote on 02/03/2020 20:00: I know first hand that the RIPE NCC and the RIPE Chair are in the process of updating the risk assessment for RIPE80 and evaluating options. As usual: should current plans change you will hear it here first. Please return to more appropriate fora to discuss generalities. We can discuss again when/if alternatives to the current plan emerge. The RIPE NCC's current meeting plans are documented here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/coronavirus-update Agreed that it's probably best to leave the armchair epidemiology to other forums. Nick
Re: [ripe-list] Take a RIPE NCC Certified Professionals exam at RIPE 79
Janos Zsako wrote on 09/10/2019 13:02: However, I see no harm in having a certification process for knowledge related to the RIPE database or other processes related to the registration of IP addresses. As the RIPE NCC delivers many trainings in these fields of expertise, it seems natural to me to have a certification system operated by the people who can best judge the knowledge acquired at these trainings. The first objective in the RIPE Terms of Reference (RIPE-1) document is: RIPE acts as a forum for the exchange of technical information and the creation of expertise on IP networking. Having training and certification processes for RIPE NCC services fits well within this framework. Even if this weren't the case, it would still be fine for the RIPE NCC to use certification mechanisms like this to promote the RIPE database. They aren't aimed at the Randys of the world, but there are plenty of other people who will find this sort of thing relevant and useful. Nick
Re: [ripe-list] https://www.ripe.net/ inappropriate javascript
Randy Bush wrote on 05/05/2019 23:19: i have no expertise in the space. but Christoffer Hansen pointed out https://matomo.org/ This is already used on the web site: www-analytics.ripe.net/piwik.php www-analytics.ripe.net/piwik.js Piwik changed name to Matomo in 2018. Nick
Re: [ripe-list] https://www.ripe.net/ inappropriate javascript
Mirjam Kuehne wrote on 03/05/2019 13:30: 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. We are not using this to monitor or track individual users, it is purely to give us insight into how users interact with the website. Hi Mirjam, thanks for the update on this. No-one is suggesting that the RIPE NCC is tracking individual users by using Google Tag Manager, but as data controller for the web site, can the ripe ncc confirm what data Google is collecting via this JS module and how it's processed? CJEU Case C‑673/17 looks like it's heading towards confirming informed opt-in rather than informed opt-out for cookies. The current site configuration has no opt-out. Do you have plans to move this to opt-in for third party cookie collection? Nick
Re: [ripe-list] https://www.ripe.net/ inappropriate javascript
Randy Bush wrote on 03/05/2019 00:31: i am curious what technical and management decision processes which allowed this to happen. something broke. unless the ripe ncc has a hitherto unknown evil conspiratorial agenda, I'd assume this happened for the usual reasons: 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. The downside is that all externally-hosted trackers do exactly that: they track, and then correlate individual usage profiles across different web sites to build up profile information about individual users. And they provide no easy way of removing this information from their DBs, nor do they provide a consistent way of declining to contribute to this data pool. In relation to the GDPR, the CJEU is in the process of trying to figure out where the privacy responsibilities lie in Case C‑40/17 - Fashion ID vs Verbraucherzentrale NRW. Advocate General Bobek has made a non-binding suggestion to the court that this responsibility be shared between the web site and the third party tracker site, but no formal ruling has been made so far; nor is it clear what the practical implications would be for either party. It would be interesting to see what the consequences would be of requesting GDPR requests in the context of this judgement. How would the RIPE NCC handle a request from Jo Bloggs who wanted all her tracking data deleted and who wanted to opt out in future? How would the tracker IDs be identified in a way which was comprehensible to the average user? Did she provide informed consent in the first place, or does a footer notification at the bottom of the site constitute informed consent that she was ok about being tracked from the RIPE NCC to her favourite political web site, then to a civil rights site, then to an online store, then to a religious advocacy site before settling on her favourite online news sources? - at which point the tracker operator has gleaned more information about her than she probably knew herself. 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. Nick
Re: [ripe-list] It's 2018, why are the RIPE hotels still using "booking forms"??
Ole Jacobsen wrote: > Every one of the hotels listed at > https://ripe76.ripe.net/venue/accommodation/ provide PDF forms (not > even PDF-fillable ones) for the booking. The one I completed wants > me to: > > "In order to confirm your booking, please contact the hotel to proceed > to the payment: - By credit card that must be given by phone to the > hotel." Also, make sure to fill out your email address in capital letters before faxing the reservation through! Nick
Re: [ripe-list] Proposal for a full-time position for the RIPE Chair
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > The role as RIPE chair is in many ways very similar to the AD / IESG > membership positions in the IETF except they are virtually full time. > I am not convinced about your idea for a number of reasons. First, I > am not sure we need a separate body that work on GDPR etc as we have > the NCC staff working on that. Duplicating this doesn’t seem like a > good use of funds and resources. Secondly, if we employ a chair it > would have to be more static as few people would leave an existing > job for a five year contact and I worry that will limit the selection > pool. Last, creating a legal entity that represents the RIPE > community requires a lot more formalisation of how that legal entity > registers members, policy etc. and I am not convinced we want that. this doesn't solve the problem that anyone who might be interested in performing RIPE Chair duties either needs to do so on zero income or else needs to find an employer who is happy to subsidise this position for several years. This also limits the pool of available candidates. Regarding the comparison between RIPE Chair and IETF AD / IESG, it's viable although busy to have a day job when holding AD / IESG positions, but I get the impression that the RIPE Chair position is more demanding time-wise due to the travel commitments. Nick
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE 75
Alexander Isavnin wrote: > Dear Nigel! > > May i clarify some things? > > Did i get right, that "RIPE NCC is secretariat for community" is a > fairy tale, told to RIPE Meetings newcomers? Legally, the RIPE NCC is answerable only to its members. This is a requirement under Dutch law, and there is nothing surprising or unexpected about it. The RIPE NCC membership is mostly made up of the people who are active in the RIPE Community, and for the most part, there is very little divergence between RIPE community policy and RIPE NCC actions. There are one or two instances I can think of, e.g. charging for ASNs (explicitly overridden by NCC member vote, but let's face it, this isn't an issue that's worth throwing the toys out of the pram over) and rolling out RPKI for PI assignments (RIPE NCC agreed that this was a mistake to proceed without policy and then waited for the RIPE Community policy to request this before proceeding). In practice, there is a 25 year history of implementing RIPE Community policies in good faith. If this changes in the future, I have no doubt that the RIPE NCC membership will want to know why, and if good reasons aren't provided, then the RIPE NCC board will be held to account. > And relations of RIPE NCC to RIPE Community are just 4 letters E I P R in the > name? > > And Number Resources allocation in this region happens not on behalf > of Community, but because of some kind of MoUs signed by Dutch > association with American corporation owned by other American > corporation? > > And all those are official statements of the RIPE NCC Executive Board? Nigel signed that email in his position as Chairman of the board, which looks pretty official. I don't know what EIPR stands for in this context. Could you explain? If you have some alternative suggestions about how to manage global IP number resource allocations other than through a relationship with IANA, then please speak up and we can have a discussion about your suggestions. Nick > Kind regards, > Alexander Isavnin > >>> 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. >> Jim beat me to it (they obviously get up earlier North of The Border). >> >> The NCC Board does of course take account of policies, and also comments >> on them as part of the evaluation process that the NCC does during >> policy development. In all cases up until now we have instructed the NCC >> to follow policy. However, as board members we have certain fiduciary >> duties which cannot be overridden by policy. Faced with a situation such >> as Jim describes we have two choices: not implement the policy or resign >> and hope that someone else agrees to carry the can. >> >> Nigel >> Chairman RIPE NCC Board >> >> > > > Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum > >
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE 75 - DTCM Requirements
Gordon Lennox wrote: > In Stockholm I was not entirely comfortable with the use of RFIDs. Maybe > I have been to too many IETF meetings? 10 seconds in the microwave is enough to solve any RFID privacy problem. Nick
