- ripe-list - mailman.ripe.net

Call for presentations RIPE 78
by Benno Overeinder 10 Jan '19

10 Jan '19

Dear colleagues, Please find the CFP for RIPE 78 below or at: https://ripe78.ripe.net/submit-topic/cfp/. The deadline for submissions is *3 March 2019*. Please also note that speakers do not receive any extra reduction or funding towards the meeting fee at the RIPE Meetings. However, on an individual basis, participants can apply for a RIPE Fellowship or RACI, see the "Speakers" paragraph in CFP for more information. Kind regards, Benno Overeinder RIPE PC Chair https://ripe78.ripe.net/ripe-pc/ -------------------->>><<<-------------------- Call for Presentations A RIPE Meeting is an open event where Internet Service Providers, network operators and other interested parties get together. Although the meeting is mostly technical, it is also a chance for people to meet and network with others in their field. *RIPE 78 will take place from 20-24 May in Reykjavik, Iceland* The RIPE Programme Committee (PC) is now seeking content proposals from the RIPE community for the plenary sessions, BoFs (Birds of a Feather sessions), panels, workshops, tutorials and lightning talks at RIPE 78. See the full descriptions of the different presentation formats: https://ripe78.ripe.net/submit-topic/presentation-formats/ Proposals for plenary sessions, BoFs, panels, workshops and tutorials must be submitted for full consideration no later than *3 March 2019*. Proposals submitted after this date will be considered depending on the slots still available in the programme. The PC is looking for presentations covering the topics of network engineering and operations, including but not limited to: - IPv6 deployment - Managing IPv4 scarcity - Data centre technologies - Network and DNS operations - Internet governance and regulatory practices - Network and routing security - Content delivery - Internet peering and mobile data exchange - Connected Things (aka. Internet of Things - IoT) ---- Speakers ---- Presenters, RIPE Working Group Chairs and the RIPE Programme Committee are required to cover their own costs to attend a RIPE Meeting (meeting ticket, travel and accommodation). We have various ticket options available depending on your needs. Please note that participants can apply for a RIPE Fellowship or RACI, on an individual basis, to develop their professional or academic career. For more information, please visit: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/ripe-fellowship https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/raci In extraordinary circumstances, the RIPE Chair can waive the meeting fee for presenters. These requests are dealt with on a case-by-case basis via pc(a)ripe.net. ---- Submissions ---- Presenters should be clear on whether they wish to submit a presentation for a plenary or working group (WG) session. At present, most working groups will solicit policy proposals, discussion points or other content directly via their mailing lists. If you’re not sure what kind of session you should be presenting at, please visit: https://ripe78.ripe.net/plenary-or-wg/ RIPE Meeting attendees are quite sensitive to keeping presentations non-commercial, and product marketing talks are strongly discouraged. Repeated audience feedback shows that the most successful talks focus on operational experience, research results, or case studies. For example, presenters wishing to describe a commercial solution should focus on the underlying technology and should not attempt a product demonstration. Presenters should indicate how much time they will require. In general, the time allocated for the different presentation formats is as follows: - Plenary presentations: 20-25 minutes presentation with 5-10 minutes discussion - Tutorials: up to two hours (Monday morning) - Workshops: one hour (during evening sessions) to two hours (Monday morning) - BoFs: approximately one hour (during evening sessions) - Lightning talks: 10 minutes in total for both the presentation and any discussion The following general requirements apply: - Proposals must be submitted using the meeting submission system, https://ripe78.ripe.net/submit-topic/ - Lightning talks should also be submitted using the meeting submission system (https://ripe78.ripe.net/submit-topic/) and can be submitted any time up to and including the meeting week. The allocation of lightning talks will be announced on short notice, in some cases on the same day but often one day prior to the time slot allocated. - Presenters who propose a panel or BoF are encouraged to include speakers from several (perhaps even competing) companies and/or a neutral facilitator. - All presentation proposals will only be considered by the PC if they contain at least draft presentation slides (slides may be updated later on). For panels, proposals must contain a clear description, as well as the names of invited panellists, presenters and moderators. ---- Diversity and Inclusion - On-Site Childcare and the RIPE Meeting Code of Conduct ---- Did you know that RIPE Meetings now have on-site childcare? You can reserve a spot for your child (age 6 months - 10 years) during the registration process for the meeting. Childcare places are limited, so please be quick to reserve a spot for your child while registering for the meeting. More information at: https://ripe78.ripe.net/on-site/on-site-childcare/ Ensuring that RIPE Meeting values are upheld and that attendees experience a professional, respectful and safe meeting is a priority. Please do read the RIPE Meeting Code of Conduct: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-o… --- If you have any questions or requests concerning content submissions, please email pc(a)ripe.net.

1 0

ICANN Board Seat 10 Elections: Comment Phase Ending Soon
by Antony Gollan 09 Jan '19

09 Jan '19

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO). The comment phase of the Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) ICANN Board Seat 10 Elections will end at *23:59 UTC on 15 January 2019.* Following a call for candidates, the ASO AC announced that the following three candidates had been nominated and invited the Numbers community to provide comments and feedback: - Dmitry Burkov - Akinori Maemura - Andile Ngcaba The comment phase began on 1 December 2018. If you have not done so already, please add your comments/feedback to the candidates' profiles at: https://aso.icann.org/aso-icann/icann-board-elections/2018-19-icann-board-o… Regards Antony Gollan Senior Communications Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [ripe-list] [ncc-announce] [news] Billing Changes for 2019
by Patrick Velder 24 Dec '18

24 Dec '18

+1 It's another step to prevent people opening multiple LIRs. On 21.12.18 15:55, Dominic Schallert wrote: > Dear all, > while I appreciate the efforts in reducing accounting complexity > and organizational overhead at RIPE NCC, I’m not sure if this step > of removing the possiblity for quarterly and half-yearly payment is > beneficial looking at the vast amount of smaller, single-account LIRs. > > Just my opinion. > > Kind regards, > Dominic > > >> Am 21.12.2018 um 15:34 schrieb Gwen van Berne <gvanberne(a)ripe.net >> <mailto:gvanberne@ripe.net>>: >> >> Dear RIPE NCC members, >> >> We would like to notify you about changes to our billing processes that >> will come into effect for 2019. Invoicing will take place one month >> later than usual on 18 February 2019 to ensure you have time to plan for >> the changes listed below. >> >> 1. Move to annual billing schedule only >> On 13 December, the RIPE NCC Executive Board resolved to move the >> billing process for members to an annual scheme only. >> >> This change to annual billing only is aimed at reducing complexity for >> our members, eliminating repeated late payments and reminders, and also >> bringing efficiencies to our processes. With the increasing number of >> LIR accounts, the quarterly payments schedule has put a heavy burden on >> our administration. This option also means that members often have to be >> notified several times per year about late invoice payments. >> >> For members with only one LIR account, we will design a transition plan >> for those with cash flow limitations and who therefore have difficulty >> meeting the payment schedule. We will provide details about this in >> January 2019. >> >> 2. No longer sending annual separate account statements >> In line with our efforts to make our billing processes more efficient >> and member-friendly, we will no longer send the annual account statement >> to members separately from the invoice. This has caused confusion in the >> past for members who are receiving financial statements before the >> invoice is available to pay. The annual invoice will include all >> charging details, including the membership contribution and, when >> applicable, independent resources, legacy resources and the >> redistribution from 2018. More details on the calculation for the >> redistribution will be communicated in January 2019. >> >> We will notify all billing contacts about the changes to our billing >> processes. >> >> The full billing procedure for 2019 is available at: >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/member-support/payment/ripe-ncc-billing-pr… >> >> There is a webpage that provides additional information on our billing >> procedure and also gives further details that are useful for members in >> Russia and Ukraine: >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/member-support/payment/ripe-ncc-billing-pr… >> >> We are confident that these changes will simplify the billing process >> and we trust that you will support our efforts to increase efficiencies >> at the RIPE NCC. If you have questions or you want to request support >> from us, please contact <billing(a)ripe.net>. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Gwen van Berne >> Chief Financial Officer >> RIPE NCC >> >

5 7

Re: [ripe-list] [ncc-announce] [news] Billing Changes for 2019
by Jon Morby (Fido) 21 Dec '18

21 Dec '18

They can bill annually so long as payments can be made in instalments. I think RIPE (being the behemoth that it is) misses the fact that most of us can only bill our clients monthly and as such pay most of our suppliers in a similar vein as we are after all not banks. Had this been put to the members (and if it has, I apologise as I’ve not seen it) then I would most definitely have voted against. Cash flow is king and tbh I would rather have it sitting in my bank account for as long as possible rather than RIPE’s Now if RIPE is going to offer us a 25-35% discount on fees for moving to annual billing, then it might sweeten the pill, but I don’t see that happening (more than maybe as a once off) and frankly I think this not going to help reduce RIPE’s admin much at all. If RIPE does need to look at cost savings then I’m sure there are some other projects internally which have cost millions of Euros that could be curtailed or shouldn’t have even been started, but impacting member cash flow is probably the last place to star not the first (imho) – Jon Morby where those in the know go Tel: 0345 004 3050 > On 21 Dec 2018, at 14:55, Dominic Schallert <ds(a)schallert.com> wrote: > > Dear all, > while I appreciate the efforts in reducing accounting complexity > and organizational overhead at RIPE NCC, I’m not sure if this step > of removing the possiblity for quarterly and half-yearly payment is > beneficial looking at the vast amount of smaller, single-account LIRs. > > Just my opinion. > > Kind regards, > Dominic > > >> Am 21.12.2018 um 15:34 schrieb Gwen van Berne <gvanberne(a)ripe.net>: >> >> Dear RIPE NCC members, >> >> We would like to notify you about changes to our billing processes that >> will come into effect for 2019. Invoicing will take place one month >> later than usual on 18 February 2019 to ensure you have time to plan for >> the changes listed below. >> >> 1. Move to annual billing schedule only >> On 13 December, the RIPE NCC Executive Board resolved to move the >> billing process for members to an annual scheme only. >> >> This change to annual billing only is aimed at reducing complexity for >> our members, eliminating repeated late payments and reminders, and also >> bringing efficiencies to our processes. With the increasing number of >> LIR accounts, the quarterly payments schedule has put a heavy burden on >> our administration. This option also means that members often have to be >> notified several times per year about late invoice payments. >> >> For members with only one LIR account, we will design a transition plan >> for those with cash flow limitations and who therefore have difficulty >> meeting the payment schedule. We will provide details about this in >> January 2019. >> >> 2. No longer sending annual separate account statements >> In line with our efforts to make our billing processes more efficient >> and member-friendly, we will no longer send the annual account statement >> to members separately from the invoice. This has caused confusion in the >> past for members who are receiving financial statements before the >> invoice is available to pay. The annual invoice will include all >> charging details, including the membership contribution and, when >> applicable, independent resources, legacy resources and the >> redistribution from 2018. More details on the calculation for the >> redistribution will be communicated in January 2019. >> >> We will notify all billing contacts about the changes to our billing >> processes. >> >> The full billing procedure for 2019 is available at: >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/member-support/payment/ripe-ncc-billing-pr… >> >> There is a webpage that provides additional information on our billing >> procedure and also gives further details that are useful for members in >> Russia and Ukraine: >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/member-support/payment/ripe-ncc-billing-pr… >> >> We are confident that these changes will simplify the billing process >> and we trust that you will support our efforts to increase efficiencies >> at the RIPE NCC. If you have questions or you want to request support >> from us, please contact <billing(a)ripe.net>. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Gwen van Berne >> Chief Financial Officer >> RIPE NCC >> >

1 0

Re: [ripe-list] [ncc-announce] [news] Billing Changes for 2019
by Dominic Schallert 21 Dec '18

21 Dec '18

Dear all, while I appreciate the efforts in reducing accounting complexity and organizational overhead at RIPE NCC, I’m not sure if this step of removing the possiblity for quarterly and half-yearly payment is beneficial looking at the vast amount of smaller, single-account LIRs. Just my opinion. Kind regards, Dominic > Am 21.12.2018 um 15:34 schrieb Gwen van Berne <gvanberne(a)ripe.net>: > > Dear RIPE NCC members, > > We would like to notify you about changes to our billing processes that > will come into effect for 2019. Invoicing will take place one month > later than usual on 18 February 2019 to ensure you have time to plan for > the changes listed below. > > 1. Move to annual billing schedule only > On 13 December, the RIPE NCC Executive Board resolved to move the > billing process for members to an annual scheme only. > > This change to annual billing only is aimed at reducing complexity for > our members, eliminating repeated late payments and reminders, and also > bringing efficiencies to our processes. With the increasing number of > LIR accounts, the quarterly payments schedule has put a heavy burden on > our administration. This option also means that members often have to be > notified several times per year about late invoice payments. > > For members with only one LIR account, we will design a transition plan > for those with cash flow limitations and who therefore have difficulty > meeting the payment schedule. We will provide details about this in > January 2019. > > 2. No longer sending annual separate account statements > In line with our efforts to make our billing processes more efficient > and member-friendly, we will no longer send the annual account statement > to members separately from the invoice. This has caused confusion in the > past for members who are receiving financial statements before the > invoice is available to pay. The annual invoice will include all > charging details, including the membership contribution and, when > applicable, independent resources, legacy resources and the > redistribution from 2018. More details on the calculation for the > redistribution will be communicated in January 2019. > > We will notify all billing contacts about the changes to our billing > processes. > > The full billing procedure for 2019 is available at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/member-support/payment/ripe-ncc-billing-pr… > > There is a webpage that provides additional information on our billing > procedure and also gives further details that are useful for members in > Russia and Ukraine: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/member-support/payment/ripe-ncc-billing-pr… > > We are confident that these changes will simplify the billing process > and we trust that you will support our efforts to increase efficiencies > at the RIPE NCC. If you have questions or you want to request support > from us, please contact <billing(a)ripe.net>. > > Kind regards, > > Gwen van Berne > Chief Financial Officer > RIPE NCC >

1 0

Re: [ripe-list] some comments on the Accountability Task Force report
by William Sylvester 17 Dec '18

17 Dec '18

Hi Jim, all, Just re-sending my earlier comments, which will hopefully be clearer to read. Regards William Sylvester Chair Accountability Task Force On 04/11/2018 18:56, Jim Reid wrote: > The TF are to be thanked for their hard work and producing a fairly > good report. The explanation of consensus is excellent and long > overdue. Well done for that. > > However I'm sorry to say the report misses a key point and also > considers something that is out of scope and provides nothing to > support that position. > > It also uses horrible American spelling in places -- center instead of > centre -- but that's nit-picking > First, the biggie. The report talks about how RIPE is accountable and > who it's accountable to, it does not explain what RIPE is accountable > *for*. I wonder if these considerations also need to be broken down and > documented for various components of RIPE -- Chair, WG Chairs, WG > Chairs Collective, Working Groups, Task Forces(!?), etc. The tables > starting on p10 don't do that IMO. They describe the functional roles > of these entities, not what they are accountable for or to who When we sought feedback from the community, we were told that it was better to avoid defining the scope of the RIPE community. This was briefly covered in the report when we said this: "Although RIPE’s scope has never been officially discussed and agreed upon, and may change as circumstances change, there is a general understanding that there are limits to the issues and problems it can address. RIPE is not an unlimited body just because a problem exists does not mean it is RIPE’s problem to solve." (Page 6). Similarly, when we discussed values, we were told that the community only really had hard agreement on the procedural values (e.g. open, transparent, bottom-up, consensus). So, in this sense, I think all we could really say is that RIPE is accountable for ensuring that it follows its own processes and that these align with this narrow set of core values (as opposed to any specific outcomes - such as good policy or effective coordination between network operators). We had thought this was more or less covered in the first part of the document. However, perhaps this was only implied and we can take another look to see if it needs to be stated more explicitly. > Next, I strongly object to the recommendation that the process for > selecting WG chairs should be aligned. This is out of scope for the TF. > > I fail to see how it fits with "potential gaps where RIPE > accountability could be improved or strengthened", which is the closest > vaguely suitable bullet point defining the TF's scope. Making that > assumption still doesn't put the recommendation in scope because the > reports says nothing about why or how aligning the selection process > would improve or strengthen things. IMO, such a move would do the very > opposite. Read on... > > I would have expected the role of the TF here would have been to verify > (or not) that WG chairs were selected by fair, open and transparent > processes that had broad WG/community support. And if there were > problems, to identify them. All of that is missing. There's just a > recommendation that seems to have been teleported in from a parallel > universe without any context or explanation for its inclusion. > > In fact the report contradicts itself because it earlier states that > aligning these procedures violates the principle of bottom-up > decision-making. So why make that recommendation and where's the > evidence to support it? Either RIPE has confidence in the bottom-up > approach or we don't. If the bottom-up approach is unsatisfactory for > deciding WG chair selection procedures (why?), what else at RIPE is it > no good for? > > WG's are self-organising and autonomous. They decide their own > charters, who the (co)chairs are, what documents and policies get > developed, time-lines, consensus decisions, etc, etc. A top-down > directive -- from whom? -- saying WG chair appointment procedures must > be aligned goes against all of that. > > It will also undermine another key principle: diversity. [Admittedly > that topic's out of scope for this Task Force.] The RIPE community > should be perfectly comfortable that its WGs do things differently. > That's a strength, not a weakness. Attempts to impose order on this > "organised chaos" are the start of a slippery slope that leads to an > institution that's in thrall to process. And look how those > organisations turn out. > > A common appointment process is incompatible with RIPE's core values of > WG independence, autonomy and diversity. Now it might happen that WGs > may one day eventually converge on a common selection procedure -- my > bet is some time after the heat death of the universe -- but that has > to be a choice for each WG to make for itself. Without outside > interference. IMO the TF has no role or authority to get involved in > this. It does/did have a role to determine if the WG Chairs were > appointed in an open and transparent manner and that the appointees > were somehow accountable. > > Previous (top-down) attempts to have a common selection process have > failed. IMO they always will. Getting WG consensus on any sort of > selection process is already hard. I know. I've had to do it. Twice. I > would prefer WGs spent their time and energies on productive work > instead of bickering over process minutae that will just go on and on > and on. We take your point. However, we would suggest that just as there is a single PDP that applies to all working groups, and a requirement that the communitiy's policies are published as RIPE Documents - there are accountability benefits from having consistency in some aspects. You can still have a bottom-up community with a shared PDP. With that being said, this was only a recommendation for the community to consider. > It would be much less contentious for the report to say something like > "The TF thinks a common WG chair selection process might be nice, but > accept that has to be a matter for each WG to decide on its own by > itself." This is very much the spirit we would like the community to take our recomendations in (though in most cases we're talking about the RIPE community rather than WGs). > > I also object to the use of the word "believe" in various places. That > suggests a faith-based assessment rather than an evidence-based > decision. Matters of belief have no place in RIPE documents.

2 1

Accountability TF Report Timeline Update
by William Sylvester 14 Dec '18

14 Dec '18

Dear colleagues, We stated earlier that our aim was to publish our final report today. However, based on the community feedback received, we need a little more time to make some final additions to the document. In light of some of these changes, we will also want to allow time for any final comments from the community after we post an updated version. Given that we're approaching the holiday break, we wish to give the community an ample opportunity to review these changes. We will be sharing these revisions after the new year, aiming to get this completed around the end of January. In the meantime, any further comments are welcome. Kind regards, William Sylvester Chair Accountability Task Force

1 0

Comment Phase Open: ICANN Board Seat 10 Elections
by Antony Gollan 13 Dec '18

13 Dec '18

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO). ICANN Board Seat 10 Elections: Comment Phase Open Following an earlier call for candidates, the ASO AC is pleased to announce that the following nominations have been received for Seat 10 on the ICANN Board of Directors: - Dmitry Burkov - Akinori Maemura - Andile Ngcaba The selected candidate will serve a three-year term (2019–2022), which will begin at the conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Assembly at the ICANN 66 Meeting, scheduled from 2-7 November 2019 in Montréal, Canada. Comment Phase The comment phase began on 1 December 2018 and will end at 23:59 (UTC) on 15 January 2019. Comments can be submitted for candidates by clicking on their name at the following web page and adding a comment to their biography: https://aso.icann.org/2018-19-icann-board-seat-10-elections-comment-phase-o… Please note that, as per section 9.4.5 of the ASO AC Operating Procedures, all comments will be moderated by the ASO Secretariat prior to being published on the ASO website. For more information on the ICANN Board of Directors Seat 10 election process, please see here: https://aso.icann.org/aso-icann/icann-board-elections/2018-19-icann-board-o… Regards Antony Gollan Senior Communications Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force: Draft Report and Next Steps
by William Sylvester 12 Dec '18

12 Dec '18

Hi Shane, all, Just re-sending my earlier comments in a clearer format. Regards William Sylvester Chair Accountability Task Force On 26/10/2018 09:42, Shane Kerr wrote: > Recommendation: > The task force acknowledges the long-standing relationship between the > RIPE community and the RIPE NCC. While there is a lot of goodwill > involved, and an overlap between RIPE NCC members and RIPE community > participants ensures alignment, there are no formalised commitments > from the RIPE NCC to the community. While this has never been a > problem to date, the task force nevertheless wishes to raise this as > something for community to consider. > > My comment: > Since RIPE is not a legal entity, any formalized commitments would > have to be done as promises by the RIPE NCC. I believe there is > precedent for this, for example promises to allow other companies > to use patented technology and not be sued (not a contract, still > possibly legally binding). Still, ultimately any such commitment by the > RIPE NCC would have to be unilateral; not an agreement. Enforcement of > any such commitment seems problematic as well, and would have to be > considered. I think here there's a bit of confusion around our use of the term "formalised". We weren't thinking of this in a legal sense, but more in terms of some kind of "official statement" (or statements) from the RIPE NCC (with whatever caveats need to be included). > Text: > This is why the community consciously developed a separation of powers > between individual working groups, the Working Group Chair Collective, > RIPE Chair, RIPE Programme Committee, and other roles and structures. > > My comment: > Was this conscious? The role of the WGCC seems to have evolved over > the years, but I don't remember it ever being considered as a sort of > separation of powers. The PC is even newer, and my recollection is > that its current form was created after Joao Damas had been > single-handedly arranging the plenary (or rather the EOF session) for > years and wanted to give up the task. I think that it was heavily > influenced by the way PCs work in NANOG or other bodies, rather than > for any reason of separating powers within RIPE. > > Citation needed. 😉 You've got us here - perhaps we overstated. This is an easy fix if we remove the "conscious intention" and change it to something like: "The risk of capture is partly mitigated by a separation of powers between individual working groups, the Working Group Chair Collective, ..." (This is just an example - we'll avoid wordsmithing on this list). > Text: > "Also, the RIPE Chair is able to waive the meeting fee for attendees > that have a legitimate need." > > My comment: > Technically I believe that the RIPE Chair asks the Managing Director > of the RIPE NCC to waive the meeting fee. While this is correct, we think the important part is who makes the decision in the context of the RIPE community. Perhaps in the future, due to some financial constraint, the RIPE NCC informs the RIPE Chair that it can afford fewer meeting fees to be waived. Then it would still be the case that the RIPE Chair makes the decision about who is eligible to receive this. > Recommendation: > The community might want to consider whether the RIPE Chair should be > required to disclose details about expenses associated with performing > RIPE Chair duties, and who covers these. > > My comment: > This is tricky. The RIPE Chair position is unpaid, and not full-time. > Certain RIPE Chair duties may be performed when the Chair is traveling > for other reasons. Personally I think this sort of transparency is > highly desirable, but I am not sure about how practical it is. Perhaps > a conversation with Hans Petter ask his opinion makes sense. > > Also note that any such transparency would probably be strictly > voluntary from the RIPE Chair, as there is no obvious enforcement > mechanism and it's not clear how any audit of expenses or other > payments would work. What we take from this is that it's desirable but perhaps not practical. We will take a closer look at this with the relevant people. > > Text: > One of the RIPE Chair functions is documented as: > "1.7 Decides on content of Friday Plenary at RIPE Meetings" > > My comment: > To be clear, the RIPE Chair is responsible for the Closing Plenary. > The RIPE NCC - in co-ordination with other RIRs - is responsible for > the first part, and the RIPE PC is responsible for the second part, > until handing it over to the RIPE Chair. This is a minor detail, and > can be changed since the RIPE Chair also has control of the overall > plan for the meeting. That's fair and we can update this. > Text: > In the introduction to the Working Group Chair section we have: > "Finally, the task force notes that there is no formal process to > educate new chairs on their role within the community. This does not > need to be anything onerous – but perhaps the RIPE NCC could share a > set of relevant documents, responsibilities and timelines with > newly-selected chairs." > > My comment: > It is not clear that the RIPE NCC actually has too much knowledge of > how the Working Groups actually work, or what the Working Group Chairs > do. However, all working groups (except IoT) have multiple co-chairs, > and I believe generally strive to maintain some level of consistency. > We could formalize the idea of new chair training and perhaps the RIPE > NCC can help organize that. We imagine the RIPE NCC could put together this information in cooperation with the WG Chairs/RIPE Chair. The RIPE NCC's role here would be more administrative (maintaining/sharing information) rather than defining how Working Groups should function. > Section: > 6.0 Programme Committee > > My comment: > Note that the PC also meets during the RIPE meetings, and also > publishes its minutes. Noted - we will update this in the final document. > Finally, there may be a couple of missing pieces in the document: > > * I think that a missing piece of RIPE the picture in RIPE is any > description of what RIPE Documents are and how they work. My > understanding is that anyone can publish a RIPE Document, but I do > not > see any description of how that is handled anywhere, nor (as the > report mentions) when a document becomes obsolete. Since these > documents happen to be where RIPE Policies live, I think this is > probably important This is a good point, and it was something that the task force discussed earlier in our process. A RIPE Document has a little more authority behind it than, for example, a web page on ripe.net. There are also differences between RIPE NCC Organisational Documents, RIPE Policies, and other documents such as task force reports that could use some explanation. We will look at putting something together for this. > * BCOP is called a task force, but really I think it is a separate > thing. It is totally fine, but it is sort of like a working group > and > sort of like a task force but not really either. It might be > confusing > and/or seem suspicious if someone is looking at RIPE from an > accountability point of view. From the point of view of RIPE it's > just > what seems practical and useful, which is a strength of the way RIPE > does stuff IMHO. Appreciate your point - however, as this is currently listed as a Task Force, we suggest it's best to stick with this definition and leave it at that. > Anyway, that's it for now. Thanks again for the excellent piece of > work. > > Cheers, > > -- Shane >

1 0

some comments on the Accountability Task Force report
by Jim Reid 11 Dec '18

11 Dec '18

The TF are to be thanked for their hard work and producing a fairly good report. The explanation of consensus is excellent and long overdue. Well done for that. However I'm sorry to say the report misses a key point and also considers something that is out of scope and provides nothing to support that position. It also uses horrible American spelling in places -- center instead of centre -- but that's nit-picking. First, the biggie. The report talks about how RIPE is accountable and who it's accountable to, it does not explain what RIPE is accountable *for*. I wonder if these considerations also need to be broken down and documented for various components of RIPE -- Chair, WG Chairs, WG Chairs Collective, Working Groups, Task Forces(!?), etc. The tables starting on p10 don't do that IMO. They describe the functional roles of these entities, not what they are accountable for or to whom. Next, I strongly object to the recommendation that the process for selecting WG chairs should be aligned. This is out of scope for the TF. I fail to see how it fits with "potential gaps where RIPE accountability could be improved or strengthened", which is the closest vaguely suitable bullet point defining the TF's scope. Making that assumption still doesn't put the recommendation in scope because the reports says nothing about why or how aligning the selection process would improve or strengthen things. IMO, such a move would do the very opposite. Read on... I would have expected the role of the TF here would have been to verify (or not) that WG chairs were selected by fair, open and transparent processes that had broad WG/community support. And if there were problems, to identify them. All of that is missing. There's just a recommendation that seems to have been teleported in from a parallel universe without any context or explanation for its inclusion. In fact the report contradicts itself because it earlier states that aligning these procedures violates the principle of bottom-up decision-making. So why make that recommendation and where's the evidence to support it? Either RIPE has confidence in the bottom-up approach or we don't. If the bottom-up approach is unsatisfactory for deciding WG chair selection procedures (why?), what else at RIPE is it no good for? WG's are self-organising and autonomous. They decide their own charters, who the (co)chairs are, what documents and policies get developed, time-lines, consensus decisions, etc, etc. A top-down directive -- from whom? -- saying WG chair appointment procedures must be aligned goes against all of that. It will also undermine another key principle: diversity. [Admittedly that topic's out of scope for this Task Force.] The RIPE community should be perfectly comfortable that its WGs do things differently. That's a strength, not a weakness. Attempts to impose order on this "organised chaos" are the start of a slippery slope that leads to an institution that's in thrall to process. And look how those organisations turn out. A common appointment process is incompatible with RIPE's core values of WG independence, autonomy and diversity. Now it might happen that WGs may one day eventually converge on a common selection procedure -- my bet is some time after the heat death of the universe -- but that has to be a choice for each WG to make for itself. Without outside interference. IMO the TF has no role or authority to get involved in this. It does/did have a role to determine if the WG Chairs were appointed in an open and transparent manner and that the appointees were somehow accountable. Previous (top-down) attempts to have a common selection process have failed. IMO they always will. Getting WG consensus on any sort of selection process is already hard. I know. I've had to do it. Twice. I would prefer WGs spent their time and energies on productive work instead of bickering over process minutae that will just go on and on and on. It would be much less contentious for the report to say something like "The TF thinks a common WG chair selection process might be nice, but accept that has to be a matter for each WG to decide on its own by itself." But even that's pushing it. The evidence so far in favour of a common procedure is at best thin. It's certainly not found in the TF report. I also object to the use of the word "believe" in various places. That suggests a faith-based assessment rather than an evidence-based decision. Matters of belief have no place in RIPE documents.

2 1