- ripe-list - mailman.ripe.net

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

RIPE Accountability Task Force: Draft Report and Next Steps
by William Sylvester 11 Dec '18

11 Dec '18

Dear colleagues, Since RIPE 73, the RIPE Accountability Task Force has been looking at the structures, processes and documentation of RIPE to ensure that we: - Are accountable to ourselves as a community - Can explain our workings to newcomers - Can demonstrate our accountability to outside observers We are now ready to share our draft report with the RIPE community and we invite you to share any input on this mailing list by 16 November. The draft report contains a set of recommendations that we will be asking the community to consider when we publish our final report towards the end of the year. You can find the draft report here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/ripe-accountability-task-force/acc… We will be going over the work of the task force in more detail at RIPE 77 during the Tuesday afternoon plenary session (14:00 - 15:30). If you will be attending the RIPE Meeting or participating remotely, we encourage you to join in and share your feedback there as well. ***Next Steps*** As mentioned above, we will have a comment period until 16 November to gather community input on the draft document. The task force will then implement any required changes to the document before publishing a final version by 14 December at the latest. After the publication of this final report, the task force will disband. The RIPE community can then decide what it wants to do with the final report and whether any of the recommendations need to be implemented. Regards William Sylvester, Chair

2 2

Register Now for RIPE 78
by Martina De Mas 11 Dec '18

11 Dec '18

Dear colleagues, You can now register for the RIPE 78 Meeting at: https://ripe78.ripe.net/register/ RIPE 78 will take place at the Hotel Hilton Reykjavík Nordica in Reykjavík from 20-24 May 2019: https://ripe78.ripe.net/on-site/meeting-venue/ ------------- Ticket Options ------------- Week ticket: EUR 350 Day ticket: EUR 125 Student (week) ticket: EUR 50 You can find more information about ticket options at: https://ripe78.ripe.net/register/ ------------- Accommodation ------------- The Hotel Hilton Reykjavík Nordica and other hotels nearby are offering RIPE 78 attendees a discounted room rate, which is subject to availability. Reserve now to avoid disappointment at: https://ripe78.ripe.net/venue/accommodation/ ------------- Call for Sponsors ------------- Supporting a RIPE Meeting through sponsorship gives your organisation fantastic exposure in the global Internet community. We offer a range of options aimed to suit organisations of all sizes: https://ripe78.ripe.net/sponsors/become-a-sponsor/ -------------------------------- Diversity Initiatives at RIPE 78 ------------------------------- We have several initiatives aimed increasing diversity and inclusion at RIPE Meetings... - RIPE Fellowship - We fund a meeting ticket, accommodation and travel to the RIPE Meeting for those in need of financial assistance from the RIPE NCC service region. The application window opens on 4 February: https://www.ripe.net/fellowship - RIPE Academic Cooperation Initiative (RACI)- RACI funds a meeting ticket, accommodation and travel for successful applicants to present their research at RIPE 78. Apply before 17 February at: https://ripe78.ripe.net/programme/raci/ - On-site Childcare - We make it easier for parents in the community to fully participate in the meeting by offering professional, on-site childcare for children ages 6m-10yo. Space is limited, so be sure to confirm your child's place when you register for the meeting. More info: https://ripe78.ripe.net/on-site/on-site-childcare/ - Women in Tech Session - This open, inclusive lunch session brings together attendees to celebrate the achievements of women in the community while sharing experiences, best practices and discussing ways to further inclusiveness in the RIPE community and beyond. - RIPE Meeting Mentoring - Experienced RIPE Meeting attendees can help newcomers make the most of their meeting by volunteering to be a mentor. We match mentors with mentees based on interests and areas of expertise. You can sign yourself up to be a mentor or mentee when you register for the meeting. More info: https://www.ripe.net/mentoring ---- More information on RIPE 78 can be found at: https://ripe78.ripe.net/ Follow us on Twitter: @ripemeeting, #RIPE78 Kind regards, RIPE Meetings Organisation Team

1 0

rob
by Randy Bush 03 Dec '18

03 Dec '18

it's been three years

4 3

REMINDER: ASO AC Call For Nominations for Seat 10 on the ICANN Board of Directors
by Antony Gollan 22 Nov '18

22 Nov '18

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO). REMINDER: ASO AC Call For Nominations for Seat 10 on the ICANN Board of Directors In line with the ICANN Address Supporting Organization (ASO) Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and the ICANN Bylaws, the Address Supporting Organization Address Council (ASO AC) has issued a call for nominations for Seat 10 on the ICANN Board of Directors: https://aso.icann.org/aso-icann/icann-board-elections/2018-19-icann-board-o… The selected candidate will serve for a three-year term, which will begin at the conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Assembly during the ICANN 66 Meeting, scheduled from 2-7 November 2019 in Montréal, Canada. Eligibility Requirements All nominated candidates must meet the selection criteria and conflict of interest requirements as outlined in Article 7 of the ICANN Bylaws. The nominated candidates will undergo a due diligence review by an independent ICANN contractor. Nomination Process Community members are invited to submit nominations by email to <nominations [at] aso [dot] icann [dot] org> by Friday, 30 November 2018 at 23:59 UTC. Nominations must include the following information: - The full name of the person being nominated. - Contact email address of the person being nominated. - Contact telephone number (if available) of the person being nominated. - The full name of the person making the nomination. - Contact email address for the person making the nomination. - Contact telephone number of the person making the nomination. Regional Restrictions The ICANN Bylaws state that the Directors selected by a Supporting Organization (SO) for its assigned Board seat(s) cannot reside in the same geographic region (see Section 7.2:c). The current ASO AC selection for Seat 9, Ron da Silva, resides in the ARIN region. Therefore, no nominations for Seat 10 can be accepted from candidates residing in the ARIN region. Important Dates - Nomination Phase: 15 September 2018 – 30 November 2018 - Comment Phase: 1 December 2018 – 15 January 2019 - ICANN Due Diligence for nominated candidates: 1 – 15 January 2019 - Interview Phase: 1 – 28 February 2019 - Selection Phase (deliberation): 1 February 2019 – 14 March 2019 - Selection Phase (voting): 15 – 21 March 2019 - Announcement of selected candidate: around 22 March 2019 Further Information - More information and updated announcements will be added to to the dedicated 2018/19 Seat 10 elections page on the ASO website: https://aso.icann.org/aso-icann/icann-board-elections/2018-19-icann-board-o… - Detailed procedures for election of individuals to the ICANN Board of Directors by the ASO AC can be found in Section 9 of the ASO AC Operating Procedures: https://aso.icann.org/documents/operational-documents/operating-procedures-… If you have any questions about the elections or the election process, please contact <secretariat [at] nro [dot] net>. Regards Antony Gollan Senior Communications Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

RACI: Apply Now!
by Gergana Petrova 20 Nov '18

20 Nov '18

Dear colleagues, The RIPE Academic Cooperation Initiative (RACI) is again looking for talented academics in the field of Internet technology. Successful applicants receive complimentary tickets, travel and accommodation to the meetings and the opportunity to present their research. If you are working on something interesting, please apply! If you know someone in your network who is, please forward them this message. https://www.ripe.net/raci --------------------- Application deadlines --------------------- MENOG 19, (TBC): apply by 3 February 2019 SEE 8 (16-17 April, Sarajevo): apply by 3 February 2019 RIPE 78 (20-24 May, Reykjavik): apply by 17 February 2019 ENOG 16 (3-4 June, Tbilisi): apply by 17 February 2019 At ENOG 16 you can present in either Russian or English. --------------------------- Examples of relevant topics --------------------------- - Network measurements and analyses - IPv6 deployment - BGP routing - Network security - Internet governance - Peering and interconnectivity - Internet of Things ------------------------------------------------- Get the latest news on RACI and Internet research ------------------------------------------------- - Subscribe to the RACI mailing list: https://www.ripe.net/raci/mailing-list - Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/raci_ripe - Join our group on LinkedIn: https://www.ripe.net/raci/linkedin Please let me know if you have any questions. Have a lovely day! Best regards, Gergana -- Gergana Petrova External Relations RIPE NCC

1 0