Hi Leo, all,
I've several inputs/questions related to both documents.
1) I understand that if actions on someone are applied, for example, leaving
the meeting, and then the appeal is in his/her favor (there was a
misunderstanding, false or wrong perception of witness, etc.), there are legal
I didn't realize before most of the points that Malcolm is raising and fully
agree with his inputs.
No explanation from the CoC? No right to defense or explain? Guilty unless you
prove otherwise? Anonymous?
Really shameful if that's all correct. So please, the CoC should respond to
each of
Extra points (clicked too fast send) ... very important ones in my opinion,
regarding the appointment of CoC Team members.
1) Don't see the need to ask for one person from the community, and it is fair
easy to fake (again same point regarding enforcement).
2) I don't agree that the Chair is the
job. Again, no issues.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 10/4/22, 22:49, "ripe-list en nombre de Gert Doering"
escribió:
Hi,
On Sun, Apr 10, 2022 at 08:01:23PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
ripe-list wrote:
> Clearly the goal is to get the job done.
Hi Gert,
Clearly the goal is to get the job done.
If TF members "a, b and c" agree to work on that, but they disagree to work
with "d, e and f", and "d, e and f" have no problem to work with "a, b and c",
the ones that are avoiding the work to be done is "a, b and c", not the others.
So,
to that appeal process.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 10/4/22, 11:10, "ripe-list en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list"
escribió:
Hi Niall, all,
I need to insist in some of the points that I’ve raised on February 20th,
rephrasing them a little bit, consideri
Hi Niall, all,
I need to insist in some of the points that I’ve raised on February 20th,
rephrasing them a little bit, considering the new version:
Elements of the TF structure of work (Rationale, Charter, etc.). I don’t agree
it should be the Chair unique responsibility to define them.
Hi Mirjam, all,
See my responses below in-line.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 16/2/22 14:45, "ripe-list en nombre de Mirjam Kuehne"
escribió:
Dear colleagues,
On 26 January we held an online meeting to gather feedback about the
revised Policy Development Process (PDP). The
b 20, 2022 at 12:01:49PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
ripe-list wrote:
> You can't declare consensus in something that was developed by a TF
> that discriminated even a single participant from being part of the
> TF.
Consensus is not unanimity. And task forces
Hi Mirjam, all,
You can't declare consensus in something that was developed by a TF that
discriminated even a single participant from being part of the TF.
That creates a problem since minute cero, and basically invalidates the process.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 3/2/22 10:57,
Hi Niall, all,
I don't think it must be the RIPE Chair the one defining Rationale, Charter,
etc. It must be a community consensus decision. Otherwise, we may be in a
situation where those definitions don't align with the community wishes or
perceived needs.
There should be a draft document
Totally agree with what others have said: I don't think Denis email had
anything wrong.
Each person has a different way to say things. Language and expressions may
look a bit in the limit sometimes, especially when the reader is not native
speaker (or even worst, when you aren't English native
law here.
This is a procedural document in a community, not a law.
-Cynthia
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:30 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list
wrote:
Hi Sander,
Just count how many proposals have reached consensus even if they have not got
a previous discussion in the list. Is a mat
Nov 25, 2021 at 1:30 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list
wrote:
Hi Sander,
Just count how many proposals have reached consensus even if they have not got
a previous discussion in the list. Is a matter of numbers.
Law != suggestions, law must be strict and avoid as much as possible subjective
ment in a community, not a law.
-Cynthia
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:30 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list
wrote:
Hi Sander,
Just count how many proposals have reached consensus even if they have not got
a previous discussion in the list. Is a matter of numbers.
Law != suggestions, law mu
w the RIPE chair can
also invite someone to RIPE meetings/remove their ticket cost. (not entirely
certain on the last part, sorry if I got it wrong)
-Cynthia
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:34 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list
wrote:
Hi Mirjam, all,
Firstly, I can't agree with how this
5/11/21 13:34, "Cynthia Revström" escribió:
Yes but this is NOT law as Sander said, we are not writing a law here.
This is a procedural document in a community, not a law.
-Cynthia
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:30 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list
wrote:
Hi Sander,
someone to RIPE meetings/remove their ticket cost. (not entirely
certain on the last part, sorry if I got it wrong)
-Cynthia
On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 10:34 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list
wrote:
Hi Mirjam, all,
Firstly, I can't agree with how this update to the PDP is being m
Hi Sander,
Just count how many proposals have reached consensus even if they have not got
a previous discussion in the list. Is a matter of numbers.
Law != suggestions, law must be strict and avoid as much as possible subjective
interpretations.
El 25/11/21 13:17, "ripe-list en nombre de
Hi Mirjam, all,
Firstly, I can't agree with how this update to the PDP is being managed. The
PDP is updated by the PDP as a policy proposal and it should follow exactly the
same process. Is not only because this is the way the other RIRs do, but
because we already did that not long time ago:
Even if a transfer policy is adopted, *before* any transfer AFRINIC has the
right to verify the resources are being used according to the policies, RSA,
documentation/justification provided when it was allocated/assigned, etc., etc.
If the resources don’t follow the rules, the RIR (not just
Hi Mirjam, all,
I wonder when those documents reached consensus and have been approved by the
community?
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 15/7/21 13:29, "ripe-list en nombre de Mirjam Kuehne"
escribió:
Dear colleagues,
As mentioned in my recent update on RIPE Labs, the following
Hi Hank,
I agree with those points, we had similar discussions in other RIRs.
Not being a lawyer, I believe that instead of “copyright”, we should use
“intellectual property”, as copyright is one form of presenting that.
Regarding the law violation. It is not clear how that should be
Hi Leo, all,
I can’t support the document at this stage, because the points I mention.
Possibly they can be accommodated and then I will be happy to support.
To state it clearly: Note that my disagreement with the discrimination at the
participation of the TF is no a blocking to my
Common sense for me is on the other way around. A TF with 5 people is much
better than just 4. Even 10 people, maybe not 25.
Common sense is to define up-front what is the allowed membership, not
afterwards having a discussion about that and then making an arbitrary
decision, because the
Hi Mirjam,
The email sent to the list on sept. 8th, was crystal clear "*Please* contact us
before 15 September 2020".
Your email doesn't say "if you don't tell us before 15th September, you will be
excluded from the TF". And even something like that, will be surprising to me,
but could be
Tks Leo,
I was understanding there are formal minutes published in the TF web page, and
could not find them. I will read thru all the emails then.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 26/3/21 13:30, "ripe-list en nombre de Leo Vegoda"
escribió:
Hi Jordi,
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 2:50
Hi Nick,
> 1) Inputs from the legal team, should be open and transparently presented
to the community.
Task forces, committees, etc have reporting structures which allow them
room to do what they are tasked to do, and then report back.
There's no general principle which
Hi Mirjam, all,
I can't agree with that:
1) Inputs from the legal team, should be open and transparently presented to
the community.
2) As with any other documents, policies, etc., Community should be able to
provide any inputs that we believe necessary, and not just "general principles
or
Thu, 25-03-2021 12h 22min, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list
wrote:
I don't think this is the case. What happens is that if nobody reports (or the
LEA don't discover) that it was not reported by someone that had the knowledge
of it, nothing is going to happen against the "lack of repor
to ensure that it is
verified by the legal counsel, as well as the complete CoC, to ensure that we
aren't trying to enforce something that may create problems at some point.
El 25/3/21 11:43, "ripe-list en nombre de Daniel Karrenberg"
escribió:
On 24 Mar 2021, at 17:21, JORDI PAL
Clearly, we are talking about "corner cases", but may be not so much as a
murder. For example, sexual harassment (either in a mailing list, or in private
emails after a mailing list message, or in a meeting), it is a very serious
crime in many countries, again, not sure if it is the case in
I don't know if this is the same in Netherlands, but in many countries, if you
(either citizen or organization) know about a possible illegal action, you must
report it, otherwise may be liable of covering-up an illegal activity.
Why Netherlands? Because the RIPE activities, mail exploders,
Hi Leo, all,
How come we can pretend that the RIPE community is open, inclusive,
transparent, etc., if when we do this kind of work, we don't allow volunteer
participants to join? How come we can have a CoC that must be respected by all
if since day one on the work for this, somebody that
I've moved this to the plenary list, because I think it deserves some more
ample discussion.
I'm with Job here.
In my opinion pre-recorded material must be fine if the presenter is also
available for Q We need to take advantage of time and available resources in
all the meetings.
In fact, my
Hi Randy,
I don't agree with this rationale, as in all the other RIRs is the same. The
ONLY difference is that here we have an explicit different name for the
organization (RIPE NCC) and the community (RIPE).
But this is the same in *all* the other RIRs. In fact, the "lack" of a
different
>
>> 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.
I'm convinced that if you allow infinite terms, most of the people in the WG,
will support the same existing folks. I did, now I realize it was a wrong
decision in some case.
In Spanish we have a said "the bad known is better than the good to know" (not
sure if the translation is correct, or
Hi Nigel,
I've the feeling that in part, the lack of volunteers is due to the fact that
existing ones can continue in perpetuity.
Also the details that we have in some cases 3 WG chairs and that means 1 less
chair available for another WG. Note that I think that, considering that in
other
Hi all,
Yesterday I should have reacted in a different way, ignoring the provocations,
so I want to ask excuses for that.
I think we (all) in those situations must privately ask the chairs to enforce
he AUP and call to the order to the authors of inappropriate postings.
I need to make clear
to reply
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 9/2/21 15:21, "ripe-list en nombre de Peter Koch"
escribió:
Jordi,
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 03:15:33PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
ripe-list wrote:
> I missed that in the PDP, where it is mention?
you might the
021, at 13:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list ripe-list@ripe.net
wrote:
("Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure”)
Hi, Jordi, all
On your policy proposal: Is this something the Arbiters [0] could do well?
Andy
[0] http://ripe.net/about-us/legal/arbitration/list-of-arbiter
ng process of
RIPE (and other RIRs).
And to respond on the other part: Believe me, trying to coerce or harass me
will not work, on the other way around.
El 9/2/21 14:30, "ripe-list en nombre de Jim Reid" escribió:
> On 9 Feb 2021, at 11:33, JORDI PALET MARTINE
b 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 objectio
Hi Mirjam, all,
With all the respect "come on!".
1st clarification: I've not doubted about the work of the policy officer, I
think I made clear that they did their job very well and I defended that it is
important that they (and the relevant WG chairs) provide inputs since day one
and it
A more in depth reading of "Review of the RIPE Appeals Procedure", which I
already sent to the chairs-team:
While I basically agree with most of the points, I've some comments:
Regarding recommendation 1, may be some of the timings and roles should be
better defined in the PDP. I think the PDP
Hi Mirjam, all,
First of all, I want to thank for this extensive work.
I've read the link that you provided and the documents linked to it, and I
agree with most of the points, while I still think there are missing points or
issues.
I'm going to discuss here only the most important ones, I
ess works.
If other authors have a different experience, it will be good to know.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 8/2/21 14:38, "Jim Reid" escribió:
> On 7 Feb 2021, at 21:56, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list
wrote:
>
> I proposed several choices in
.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 8/2/21 11:33, "ripe-list en nombre de Gert Doering"
escribió:
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 09:28:31AM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
ripe-list wrote:
> [Jordi] It has not been the case in the first appeal we had. Chairs that
ombre de Jim Reid" escribió:
> On 8 Feb 2021, at 08:28, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list
wrote:
>
> Just look at legal systems.
Exactly. This is RIPE. It’s not a court. Or a quasi-legal organisation.
Think *VERY* carefully about making RIPE a lawyer-fe
Funny, that were my thoughts exactly. Let's add the obvious problem on
what to do if something thinks someone on the panel (however elected)
is baised but the person her/himself doesn't think so, etc.
[Jordi] The proposal has simple text for that.
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
I don't agree.
Just look to other RIRs, or different "groups" with a chair.
I think it must be explicit, if is in the PDP or in the "description of the
chairs attributions", doesn't matter, but of course, the PDP should have an
explicit reference to that document and that document should also
Hi Nick,
El 7/2/21 22:49, "Nick Hilliard" escribió:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote on 07/02/2021 13:05:
> Briefly, in several situation I've written policy proposals, and the
> chairs of the WG, tried to convince me to not publish it, or actual
El 7/2/21 22:54, "ripe-list en nombre de Andy Davidson"
escribió:
On 7 Feb 2021, at 13:05, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list
wrote:
> ("Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure”)
Hi, Jordi, all
On your policy proposal: Is this something the Arbiters
Hi Sander,
The last appeal demonstrated that:
1) Folks that should haven’t participated in the appeal, actually participated.
It is clear that if you had a previous clear idea about a proposal, and even
exposed it in the list during the discussion, shouldn't participate in the
appeal. I think
Hi all,
Across the years, I've suffered this situation several times and I think this
community must not allow it anymore and I wish the PDP has explicit actions
against those situations, so they don't happen over and over.
Briefly, in several situation I've written policy proposals, and the
Those viruses do not resist temperatures over 24-25C, so if spring is not
sufficiently hot, we just need to disconnect the air condition in the hotel and
save some energy.
Seriously. I think it is too early for taking a decision, and the decision may
depend on the German authorities to cancel
Hi Hans,
I can tell you that I've been harassed in this RIR and another RIR meetings,
both by email and in person, just because I'm contributing. Just because my
views in my policy proposal are different than the view of other people.
People yelled me in the mic, insulted me by email, but the
, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list
wrote:
>
> I know, but my question is to the ASO-AC itself. Do they have a code of
conduct?
Why didn’t you ask them instead of ripe-list?
**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the
We already knew that from previous measurements, however the nice thing from
this article is that it is analyzing many different providers worldwide:
https://teamarin.net/2019/06/25/why-is-ipv6-faster/
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
**
IPv4 is
Hi Fergal,
Thanks for your response.
Definitively, if you agree, I will quote your text on this email, in the DPA
complaint.
I guess also you may want to take legal actions because they are spreading the
message about "RIPE" is providing the data ... Let me know in private email (so
we don't
Being the author, I guess redundancy is not needed, but just in case!
+1
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: ripe-list en nombre de Gert Doering
Fecha: martes, 19 de junio de 2018, 15:45
Para: Marco Schmidt
CC:
Asunto: Re: [ripe-list] 2018-04 Review Phase
Hi Ole,
Just for info of the list, I've responded this morning in a private email
something related to this (copying here only partially my own response).
"... I also know that not every RIR has WGs, but they have equivalent
structures (eg, Advisory Council for ARIN), and that sometimes the
lt;ripe-list@ripe.net>
Asunto: Re: [ripe-list] Follow up on the Dubai AGM - RIPE WG Chair meeting
vouchers
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 08:41:12PM +0100, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
ripe-list wrote:
> To make this clear … I also see another aspect.
>
> I’m not sure if thi
to all the co-chairs.
Regards,
Jordi
-Mensaje original-
De: ripe-list <ripe-list-boun...@ripe.net> en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
via ripe-list <ripe-list@ripe.net>
Responder a: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.pa...@consulintel.es>
Fecha: jueves, 18 de enero de 2018, 19:
I think is wrong to assume that all the employers pay for those expenses, and
I’m sure more than one of the Chairs pay from their own pocket (or even is
self-employed).
And the administrative burden for doing this voucher, can be automated once, so
in my opinion is less than penuts.
Regards,
67 matches
Mail list logo
