Re: [ripe-list] Nominations solicited: 2023 Rob Blokzijl Award

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

On 22/08/2023 18:03, Carsten Schiefner wrote:

Hi Michele -

On 22.08.2023 18:17, Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote:

So it wasn’t awarded between 2018 and 2022?


no.

I'm not on the foundation's board - but Corona and even just a small 
award ceremony didn't go well together, me thinks.


Yes, our idea exactly.

Nigel

--

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

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

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

On 28/07/2023 13:14, Carsten Schiefner wrote:

On 28.07.2023 10:38, Daniel Karrenberg via ripe-list wrote:

[...]

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


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


Absolutely!

+1.

Thanks, Daniel, for having transferred this into words so eloquently.


Including adding a touch of verisimilitude with the classic loose/lose 
mistype. Pure gold ;-)


Nigel

--

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

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

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

On 21/07/2023 16:32, Niall O'Reilly wrote:

Dear colleagues,

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


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


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

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


I'm actually (and surprisingly) reasonably happy with this revised draft.

Nigel

--

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-list Digest, Vol 139, Issue 9

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

On 11/05/2023 14:51, Joe Abley wrote:

Following on from my previous comment, I think it would be better to 
focus on avoiding *actual* conflicts of interest. I think worrying 
about appearances is what happens when there is a lack of understanding 
of the substance and, in the case of managing a useful and 
productive collaboration between the community and 
NCC-as-secretariat,the substance seems important.


If the goal is to avoid a need for understanding, then it seems like the 
natural solution is that NCC staff should never be allowed to 
participate as members of the community at all. I don't think that is 
necessary or desirable.


If we had a perfect world then I'd agree with you. However I've been in 
this business long enough to know that if there is a faintest chance of 
a possible thought of a conflict then someone will complain.


However, I'm not part of this community any longer in any real sense, 
and if people think this isn't important then go for it.


Nigel

--

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-list Digest, Vol 139, Issue 9

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

On 11/05/2023 12:12, denis walker wrote:

Hi guys

People who work for a national lottery company are also citizens and
residents of the country. But they are usually not allowed to buy
lottery tickets. Pro footballers are also football supporters. But
they cannot gamble on the outcome of a game. There are many examples
of a group of people who act as an executive body or secretariat but
cannot make decisions for the larger body they serve. For RIPE NCC
staff, my view would be that it is fine for them to be involved in
making decisions (openly and transparently) about technical and
operational matters and to be actively involved in discussions about
policies, which they often have a deep understanding of. But to
determine the outcome of policy discussions and setting the policies
that govern those operations, which they then implement, may be
crossing the line on conflict of interest.


That's a good argument. So I think you are saying that RIPE NCC staff 
can take a full part in discussions but shouldn't actually be involved 
in the decisions about consensus, ie they shouldn't be a WG Chair.


Although I have absolutely no doubt that RIPE NCC employees are in 
general capable of splitting their community and work hats, for the sake 
of the appearance of things they should avoid even the appearance of 
conflict of interest.


All the best

Nigel

--

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

Re: [ripe-list] New Draft Document: RIPE NCC Staff Participation in the RIPE Community (Please review)

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/ripe-ncc-staff-participation-in-the-ripe-community

Please review this document. If you have any comments, questions,
suggestions, please send them to this list or to me directly before 31
May 2023.


Whilst I'm happy with the document in general and especially with its 
clarity and brevity I'd like to sound a note of caution.


NCC staff are, as rightly noted, members of the community and have a 
right to contribute to its work. However they are in a slightly favoured 
position in that their management is fully aware of the community and 
are willing to allow them the time to contribute. This is not the case 
for many members of the community who may find it difficult to persuade 
their employer to allow the time for them to fully participate (our 
esteemed HPH, for example, had to take annual leave to participate as 
RIPE Chair).


This has the potential to skew the ability to contribute and over time 
could result in RIPE NCC staff being over represented in working groups 
and the like.


We've actually seen this in working groups where the NCC has provided, 
for example, minute taking resources. Now whereas this is a fine thing 
and relieves the WG Chair of the thankless task of browbeating someone 
to produce a set of minutes it does, doubtless, reduce the feeling of 
the WG being a truly community thing.


None of this should be interpreted as an attack in any way on RIPE NCC 
staff who generally do a fine job of decoupling their RIPE NCC and their 
RIPE hats.


Or am I just an Old Internet Fart (TM)? (Note that I'm not campaigning 
for the return of overhead transparencies).


Nigel

--

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

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

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

Joe

On 15/03/2023 12:38, Joe Abley wrote:

Making the amount of funding clear and known before people are asked to 
throw their hats in the ring makes it more likely that people will feel 
comfortable accepting nominations.


I think this actually addressed in the document by making it clear that 
if a Chair needs remuneration they may ask for it. If they don't then 
they don't have to receive it. I think that actually putting the level 
of available funding in the document is a bit too specific.


So I don't think this actually needs addressing

Nigel

--

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

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

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

On 15/03/2023 10:08, Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote:




On 14 Mar 2023, at 17:59, Nigel Titley via ripe-list  wrote:

Having said that, it may well be that continuing to accept that the RIPE NCC 
continues to employ the RIPE Chair(s) is the only workable solution.



Would it be any better if the RIPE Chair was remunerated out of funding from 
the Rob Blokzijl foundation?


Well, possibly. It would introduce an extra layer of insulation between 
the RIPE NCC and the RIPE Chair, but the major funding for the 
foundation is still the NCC.


I've got a slightly more ideological objection to the RIPE Chair being a 
full time position. I do feel that someone who's full time job is to be 
a Chair will tend to move towards a state of mind insulated from the 
Real World (tm), which is why I always felt that the Chair should be 
part time role. And there is always the temptation to make work to fill 
the time available.


However, this is a personal opinion.

Nigel

--

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

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

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

On 07/03/2023 16:40, Niall O'Reilly wrote:

Dear friends,

After much unexpected delay, I am at last ready to ask you to read and
comment on this DRAFT statement of principles for remuneration of the
RIPE Chairs, which follows from a recommendation of the RIPE 2020
Nominating Committee.

As your mail-reading app allows, you may choose to read this message
either as plain text or as HTML; I also attach a PDF edition.

I look forward to reading your comments.


Looking back on the original discussion I was reminded of how little 
consensus there was on the original proposals.


Are we happy that the proposal from the Nomcom is actually the one we 
are in favour of. Support for the three proposals in my original email 
seemed pretty well split amongst the three scenarios with maybe a slight 
bias against formulating a RIPE foundation to employ the RIPE chairs.


I'm still slightly worried about undue influence from the RIPE NCC on 
the RIPE chair despite all the assurances to the contrary from HPH and 
others. I know only too well how insidious such influences can be.


Having said that, it may well be that continuing to accept that the RIPE 
NCC continues to employ the RIPE Chair(s) is the only workable solution.


Nigel

--

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

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

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

Ladies and gentlemen

On 14/03/2023 15:14, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:

Kurtis,colleagues,

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


I agree with Daniel. It is generally counter-productive to try and cater 
for all possible situations in such a document. One should instead state 
general principles and assume a modicum of common-sense and good will 
from those involved.


Nigel

--

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

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

[Nigel Titley via ripe-list]

On 23/03/2022 14:38, Niall O'Reilly wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

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


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


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


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


I know I'm behind the deadline but I'd just like to say that I approve 
of this V3. It's clear and uncluttered with extraneous baggage about 
voting and membership.


Nigel

--

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

[Nigel Titley]

Dear Athina

On 01/02/2022 13:26, Athina Fragkouli wrote:

We appreciate this input on our legal documents. I would like to assure you 
that the points raised will be evaluated by legal experts.

This type of feedback is always appreciated and we will give it our full 
attention. However, I would caution against confusing opinion with legal 
expertise.


I think this is the response we were all hoping for.

Many thanks

Nigel

--

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

[Nigel Titley]

On 01/02/2022 12:40, Jim Reid wrote:




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.


Tea, Jim, tea...

--

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

[Nigel Titley]

On 01/02/2022 10:49, Gert Doering wrote:

Hi Nigel,

On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 10:31:15AM +, Nigel Titley wrote:

I call on everyone, myself included, to calm down, have a cup of tea,
and let Hans-Petter get on with the job of getting his legal team to
verify (or not) what Denis has said.


This sounds like excellent advice :-)

Getting a nice cup of black tea with ginger now...


I'm not generally a fan of black tea, but I *do* like ginger. That 
sounds like an interesting combination.


All the best

Nigel

--

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

[Nigel Titley]

Hank

On 01/02/2022 06:56, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I too agree with Denis and Gert but there is no need to accept blame. 
Denis is not accusing anyone.  If anything, we are all to blame for not 
being as diligent as Denis.    Denis has even suggested a way forward:


"it will benefit the RIPE NCC to employ someone qualified or experienced 
in contract law to review and re-write all the NCC's contracts and 
agreements so they actually say what they were intended to mean."


Indeed, and I think that this would be the way forward. And I also thank 
Denis for the excellent analysis that he has done. If this had occurred 
on my watch then I would have started by pointing the RIPE NCC legal 
team at Denis' remarks and asking them to do their own analysis. I would 
also have thanked Denis publicly, whilst noting that his language might 
have been more temperate.


The trouble with the Respect Policy is that it is rather like a machine 
gun. There are times when it is the weapon of choice: in a case of 
bullying or ad hominem attack for instance. But where the attack has 
been against a document, whose authors are lost in the mists of time, it 
is like using a machine gun against a pea-shooter. And for it to be 
brought out at the start of a discussion makes one start to very gently 
wonder if there is maybe more of a case to answer than can be explained 
by bit-rot, documents not written by native English speakers and 
internet chat-room lawyers (amongst whom I proudly count myself 
(although I would claim that my English is probably fair enough)).


Finally, I would just like this to be laid to rest. Tempers are rising 
and the heat may eventually reach the level where the Respect Policy 
*is* the weapon of choice.


I call on everyone, myself included, to calm down, have a cup of tea, 
and let Hans-Petter get on with the job of getting his legal team to 
verify (or not) what Denis has said.


Yours in Peace ;-)

Nigel


--

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

[Nigel Titley]

On 31/01/2022 21:15, Gert Doering wrote:

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 08:58:22PM +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote:

I will not comment on your email right now, now but I will, however, point you 
to the RIPE Code of Conduct.

https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-766 


I read your characterisations of the document, as
"This is probably one of the worst»

as well as numerous others characterisations I will refrain from quoting,  
though out the document as completely unnecessary.

They are not helping everyone to feel safe and included.


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".

Denis has explained well enough why he thinks that many of these documents
are not in a good shape, singling out the one he thinks is the worst of
these as a starting point to get the work started to improve them.


I'm afraid that I agree with Gert. Denis was not attacking a person. He 
was attacking a document. His language might not have been as temperate 
as it might have been but he makes a number of very valid, well reasoned 
points. The appropriate response would have been to start a discussion 
with the aim of fixing the problems he has found (and they seem at face 
value to be substantial). And as much of this occurred on my watch as 
Chairman of the EB I accept a degree of blame.


Nigel

--

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

[Nigel Titley]

On 27/05/2021 08:47, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:



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


I would say to go ahead and delete it. And given that I'm one of those 
most closely affected...


Nigel

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

[Nigel Titley]

On 10/02/2021 13:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote:
> Hi Nigel,
> 
> I've the feeling that in part, the lack of volunteers is due to the fact that 
> existing ones can continue in perpetuity.

Well, possibly, but most of the WGs I've had anything to do with are
quite assiduous in trying to recruit new chairs.

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

That's certainly a viable model and it seems to work in, for example,
ARIN, but I suspect that may be partly because the majority of proposals
are concerned with address policy, so the "PDP" working group becomes a
de-facto Address Policy WG. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing but
I do think that the RIPE way of doing things encourages the development
of non Address policy policies. However this is just an opinion.

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

I does tell a lot, but what does it tell us?

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

See above...

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

I'm very much against term limits. I see no reason to remove someone
from office as long as they are performing the job properly.

Nigel

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

[Nigel Titley]

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

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

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

Nigel

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

[Nigel Titley]

On 04/07/2019 11:17, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
> 
> 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 think it's the best we are likely to achieve. Go for it.

Nigel

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

[Nigel Titley]

On 03/05/2019 15:50, Nigel Titley wrote:
> 
> 
> On 03/05/2019 13:05, Randy Bush wrote:
>>>> i am curious what technical and management decision processes which
>>>> allowed this to happen.  something broke.
>>>
>>> I'm inclined to think that this is accidental... cockup rather than
>>> conspiracy.
>>
>> i did not mean in any way to imply conspiracy, and am a bit unhappy that
>> you and nick seem to think i did.
> 
> I was using the term in the usual way ie it was not intended (cockup),
> or it was intended (conspiracy). Not a literal conspiracy.

And Mirjam has just confirmed it was cockup

Nigel

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

[Nigel Titley]

On 03/05/2019 13:05, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> i am curious what technical and management decision processes which
>>> allowed this to happen.  something broke.
>>
>> I'm inclined to think that this is accidental... cockup rather than
>> conspiracy.
> 
> i did not mean in any way to imply conspiracy, and am a bit unhappy that
> you and nick seem to think i did.

I was using the term in the usual way ie it was not intended (cockup),
or it was intended (conspiracy). Not a literal conspiracy.

> what i meant was that there was a decision process or weak auditing or
> the like.  if so, that process could/should be repaired.

Indeed, my feeling entirely.

Nigel

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

[Nigel Titley]

On 03/05/2019 00:31, Randy Bush 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.
> 
> i am curious what technical and management decision processes which
> allowed this to happen.  something broke.

With my EB hat on, but at a jaunty angle.

I'm inclined to think that this is accidental... cockup rather than
conspiracy. It certainly didn't come near the EB, but then I wouldn't
expect it to; we don't micromanage to this extent. Having said that, the
discussion so far has been polite, and it's best to keep it that way. I
think the displeasure has been noted.

Nigel

Re: [ripe-list] rob

[Nigel Titley]

On 01/12/2018 17:09, Randy Bush wrote:
> it's been three years
> 
Indeed it has... still missed.

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

[Nigel Titley]

At the last Executive board meeting I took an action to start a
discussion on the RIPE-list about the notion of remuneration for the
RIPE Chair.

We were fortunate that Rob B had an employer who didn't mind him
devoting unlimited amounts of time to the RIPE community. Now that Rob
is no longer with us we need to decide whether we wish to restrict the
occupant of the RIPE Chair to being someone who works for such an
employer or whether we wish for the community to financially support the
occupant of the role.

If we decide that we *do* wish them to be supported then the question
arises of where this support is to come from. The RIPE Community does
not exist as such; it has no financial resources so this question may
touch on how we wish the community to evolve.

I'm going to throw some ideas into the pool. I don't necessarily support
any of these, but offer them as a starting point for discussion.

1. We legally constitute the RIPE community, enabling it to hold
financial resources and raise income.

2. We restrict the RIPE chairmanship to those who can afford to support
themselves (RIPE NCC would continue to pay expenses)

3. The RIPE NCC pays a salary to the RIPE Chair

All of these possibilities have pros and cons, which you can probably
work out for yourselves.

I invite anyone with an opinion to join the debate. Try to keep your
contributions concise and to the point. Try and remain courteous.

If you have connected your ripe-list email contact to a trouble-ticket
machine then I will call down my curses on your children and your
children's children unto the seventh generation. Don't risk it...

All the best

Nigel Titley
Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund 2017 Recipients

[Nigel Titley]

On 27/12/17 10:39, Jim Reid wrote:
> 
>> 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...
> 
> 

The selection committee is independent of the NCC. I guess the question
should be addressed to them.

Nigel

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

[Nigel Titley]

Malcolm

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


I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that the NCC ought to be
bound to implement absolutely anything that comes out of the RIPE
community without limitation. You are rather tilting at a straw man of
your own creation here.
Well, whereas I have every faith in the good sense of the RIPE 
community, I think we have to accept that the work of the Accountability 
TF will have a wider audience. And straw men have an alarming habit of 
coming to life when they come within the purview of lawyers, politicians 
and the like.


However, when the taskforce asked NCC staff to look into this, they
discovered (to their own surprise) that the NCC has no formal document
of any nature that sets out a normative expectation that the RIPE NCC
will so much as take community policy into account. That seems a curious
omission.
I think this lies in the origins of both the RIPE NCC and the PDP. The 
first existed before the second and the second came about while the 
community still knew that the RIPE NCC would Do the Right Thing. In 
these less honourable times, such a document, in whatever form it takes, 
may well be necessary.


You are quite right to point out that the NCC has faithfully followed
the community's will, and while you and your fellow Board members remain
in charge, I am sure it will continue to do so. But part of the purpose
of this exercise is to help create the conditions that make it more
likely that your legacy in this respect is honoured by those that
succeed you. Nothing we do can guarantee that will happen, but writing
down that the NCC's history of implementing community policy is more
than a mere coincidence of opinion will both help guide future Boards
and give ammunition to Board members against anyone who argues that the
NCC should do otherwise.
I have no problem with this. We just have to be exceptionally careful to 
guard against the principle of unintended consequences... something with 
which the community is becoming more and more familiar in recent years.

Jim correctly pointed out that the community itself, not being an entity
with legal personality, cannot sign an MoU. That removes one option for
how such a normative statement might be recorded - but there are several
others. The NCC does, after all, have contracts with its members.

Personally, I think a better idea that I would like to see considered is
to write into the RIPE NCC's governing statutes that one of the purposes
of the NCC is to implement RIPE community policy. Of course this phrase
would have to be suitable qualified to avoid the pitfall you mention,
but I do not think that insurmountable, or even difficult: the NCC does
have lawyers, after all.
And I'm sure it is something that can and will be looked at. As you so 
rightly point out, in these less than honourable times, it does seems a 
curious omission.


Finally, may I gently suggest that the extremely defensive attitude of
some prominent community members to the work of this Taskforce is not a
good look. Most of us are reasonably long-standing members of the
community ourselves, and fully share both its values and well-proven way
of doing things. Our aim is to support this community, not to undermine it.
I would beware of reading more into emails than was intended by the 
sender. Certainly in my case, I have the greatest respect for the work 
that the Accountability task force is doing and very grateful to those 
who have put in the time. You did however ask for comments and you 
shouldn't be surprised to get them.


As William has said, nothing we come up with will simply go into effect:
we will simply publish some systematic observations and suggestions for
the community's consideration. Perhaps you might try to remain a little
more open to the possibility that our report might be worth the trouble
of reading, maybe even contain one or two useful ideas?
See the above... and may I gently suggest that you should also try to be 
a little less defensive too. And please don't read more into that 
comment than I intend. Imagine me with a big smile on my face.


Best regards

Nigel

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

[Nigel Titley]

Dear Alexander

On 19/10/2017 12:10, Alexander Isavnin wrote:

Dear Nigel!

Thank you for the answers (in both capacities).

Because we are in "RIPE Accountability" thread i do not think, that such 
answers are sufficient.
Yes, it's very unusual combination of Dutch nonprofit, community, some 
international relations, shared resources etc.
I feel you feel skeptical about Accountability Task Force, but unfortunately we need to 
write down and state openly some things, which are considered "well known" to 
Internet pioneers.
No, I'm not really sceptical about the TF and you are absolutely right, 
those of us who've been around a long time sometimes need to take a step 
back and examine the way we've "always done things" just to make sure 
we're still doing it right.


On 2017-10-19 12:17:43 CET, Nigel Titley wrote:

Did i get right, that "RIPE NCC is secretariat for community" is a fairy tale, 
told to RIPE Meetings newcomers?

No, RIPE NCC is a membership association which carries out Network
coordination activities on behalf of its membership and generally
governed by policies formulated by the RIPE community.

"No it's not fairy tale" or "No, it's not being told"? :)
https://ripe74.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/24-Newcomers-Intro_Axel_RIPE74.pdf
Slide #3
No, it's not a fairy tale. Just slice the "No," off the front of the 
sentence.


This is accountability question.
Our task force trying to find approach to such difficult questions.
And we hope for your help.
"RIPE Chair does what it does" is funny, but not acceptable (for broader 
audience) answer.
I hope that particular round of arguments is dead... it was foolishness 
(mostly on my part).


Hope for very constructive dialog after Accountability TF presentation.

Indeed. Looking forward to it.


Alexander

P. S. Btw, about ludicrous example. You (NCC) already signed MoU with Russian 
Telco Ministry not asking anyone. With Russian citizen hat on, i think any MoU 
with Columbian drug cartel will make lesser damage.

That particular MOU was intended to ease the provision of a near real 
time feed of the RIPE database to the Russian Telco ministry (at their 
request). And as far as I know, the Russian Telco Ministry isn't an 
illegal organisation.


All the best

Nigel

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

[Nigel Titley]

On 19/10/2017 10:27, Carsten Schiefner wrote:

Hi Nigel,

On 19.10.2017 10:36, Nigel Titley wrote:

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.

maybe that would be something then that could be put into the board's
rules of internal procedure: that the board sees to have all RIPE
policies be implemented by the NCC to the greatest extend possible, but
limited to the board's fiduciary duties?


If it makes people happier then I'm sure we could do this.

I'm generally against additional complication, especially where past 
practice doesn't give cause to worry, but as I say it doesn't really 
bother me.


Nigel

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

[Nigel Titley]

On 19/10/2017 10:56, 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?
No, RIPE NCC is a membership association which carries out Network 
coordination activities on behalf of its membership and generally 
governed by policies formulated by the RIPE community.


And relations of RIPE NCC to RIPE Community are just 4 letters E I P R in the 
name?
In practice no, as, except in extremely strange circumstances, the RIPE 
NCC conducts activities according to policies formulated by the  RIPE 
community.


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?

Completely incorrect.


And all those are official statements of the RIPE NCC Executive Board?
No they are statements made by me, wearing my Chairman hat. I'm happy to 
take off the hat and make the statements as Nigel Titley, Internet 
person at large, if it makes you happier.


What Jim and I were both trying to say, and obviously something got lost 
in translation, is that ever since the PDP's inception the NCC has 
carried out the policies as formulated by the RIPE Community, without 
exception, even when this has cost the RIPE NCC  membership considerable 
amounts of money. However, because we are bound by fiduciary duty (ie we 
mustn't do anything that's illegal under Dutch law) we *cannot* agree to 
do absolutely *anything* that might come out of the policy process. To 
take a ludicrous example, suppose the community asked us to sign an MOU 
with a Colombian drug cartel, something which under the PDP they could 
actually ask us to do, we would decline courteously.


Nigel


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 Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE 75

[Nigel Titley]

On 19/10/17 09:24, Jim Reid wrote:
> 
>> On 18 Oct 2017, at 23:53, William Sylvester  
>> wrote:
>  
>> 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.

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

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

[Nigel Titley]

Shane

I think the draft charter pretty well covers everything. I'd like to
express my thanks to the TF for their work so far.

On a side note, although the gender balance in the TF as a whole is
good, it is interesting to note considerable imbalance in the two
sub-communities. Does the TF have any idea why this might be?

All the best

Nigel

On 17/10/17 14:11, Shane Kerr wrote:
> Dear RIPE Colleagues,
> 
> On behalf of the Diversity Task Force (TF), we would like to ask for
> feedback on the draft charter:
> 
>   https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/ripe-diversity-task-force
> 
> As mentioned on the proposed charter page, we have a mailing list and
> encourage anyone interested to join:
> 
>   https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity
> 
> We also have some activities planned at the RIPE 75 meeting in Dubai
> next week:
> 
> * We will give a short report on our work since RIPE 74, in a
>   lightning talk slot during the plenary session.
> 
> * For longer discussions and as another venue for giving input, we will
>   be holding a Diversity BoF on Sunday, 22 October from 18:00 to 19:00.
> 
>   https://ripe75.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/bof/
> 
> * And for those who want to become more active, we have Task Force
>   meeting on Monday, 23 October from 18:00 to 19:00.
> 
> On behalf of the Diversity Task Force,
> 
> --
> Shane Kerr
> 

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE 75 - DTCM Requirements

[Nigel Titley]

On 05/07/17 09:41, Randy Bush wrote:

> then i am utterly confused what all the noise is about.
> 
> let's get serious here.  to me, the critical question is availability of
> decent coffee.  did the site survey cover this?

Trust Randy to get to the heart of the matter... can we move on?

Nigel

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

[Nigel Titley]

On 08/05/2017 11:02, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:



Proposal 1

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

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

This allows the task force to organise its work and at the same time it
helps to conduct the work transparently and with track-able goals.
I'm in full agreement with this proposal. If this is a Task Force (and I 
believe it should be) then it must have a well defined goal.


Proposal 2

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

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

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

Again... agreed. Task forces have well defined self destruct dates.



Proposal 3

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

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

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


I have no problems with this proposal, although I feel that the TF has 
already addressed this issue. There can be no harm in having it 
explicitly stated in the charter.


Nigel

Re: [ripe-list] cull

[Nigel Titley]

On 25/10/2016 13:51, Randy Bush wrote:

We live in a complicated world, with complicated rules. The same is no
doubt true of midwifery, garbage collection and embroidery. We can
only do our best.

but the tl;dr is that we should not
expect newer folk to always be playing at top level.

Something on which we can agree, I think.

Nigel

Re: [ripe-list] cull

[Nigel Titley]

Sent from my iPad

On 25 Oct 2016, at 13:07, Randy Bush  wrote:

> < rant >
> 
>> Ripe NCC wages a continuous war against this sort of thing.
> 
> that's nice.  but when it happens to me, were do i send the error?

You could try the Contact us form on the website, for a start. It's two clicks.

> 
>> Unfortunately there seems to be an inexhaustible supply of idiots.
> 
> ad homina.
> 
> our culture has 492 non-obvious conventions; one of them being not to
> have your vacation message or noc ticket responder reply to mailing
> list postings.  and it is not always easy to convince your software to
> detect a mailing list message.  and the learning curve is steep.
> 
> the ripe culture is so frelling complex that the ncc provides training
> courses and webinars (what a miserable word) to teach members how to
> use the basic product.  there is likely a webinar explaining what all
> the webinars and courses are; or there probably needs to be one.  if
> the ncc did not have a monopoly on renting integers, it would be out of
> business in six months.
> 
> where are the webinars on how to be a good mailing list citizen, both
> technically and socially?  what's consensus (the ietf has tried)?  how
> to best make your point on the list sans flaming and ad homina?  and
> don't tell me it's on the web site.  when a coworker first visited the
> maze of ncc offices, she said she finally understood the web site
> design.
> 
> the list goes on.  we are obscure and intimidating; and a newcomers'
> session for those who can afford flights and fancy hotels is a drop in
> the ocean.  the outreach to regional meetings is a great step, credit
> to that.
> 

We live in a complicated world, with complicated rules. The same is no doubt 
true of midwifery, garbage collection and embroidery. We can only do our best.

Nigel