<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Thoughts:</p>
<p>Accountable for what? (reflecting the minute of William's comment
in 3)<br>
</p>
<p>We could focus on how RIPE NCC's accountability is managed.</p>
<p>RIPE is open and accepting of new participants, but it has a
clearly defined core in those who have a vote in the RIPE NCC
General meeting, the LIRs.�� This voting group seems to be the
most directly accountable for the actions of the RIPE RIR, and has
transparent and open membership.� <br>
</p>
When this work group was proposed I understood that there was an
aspiration to describe RIPE itself.� The wider RIPE is the only
community of Internet Operators that spans the entire region, and
hence might be compared to NANOG, for explanation purposes.� It has
a DNS working group, it is not exclusively a subset of the "Numbers
Community". <br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Steve Nash<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/12/2016 14:34, Antony Gollan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:92323938-9611-42D5-9D35-319D2B1DA6B7@ripe.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div class="">Good afternoon everyone,�</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Please find the minutes from the first TF call
below. Let me know any changes or corrections.�</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Also attached is draft copy for the website,
including a scope based on your comments on the call.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Please also fill-in the following doodle poll for
our next call:�</div>
<div class=""><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://doodle.com/poll/6hqeseud6sbgkgb6" class="">doodle.com/poll/6hqeseud6sbgkgb6</a></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">The proposed agenda for the next call is:�</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">1) Finalise agenda - adopt minutes�</div>
<div class="">2) Selection of Chair</div>
<div class="">3) FInalise scope�</div>
<div class="">- Prior to the call, please follow-up on the action
item:�20163011-1�- Task force members to each�come up with a few
topics they want the Task Force to address and share this on�the
mailing list.</div>
<div class="">4) Finalise deliverables</div>
<div class="">5) Finalise information for website</div>
<div class="">- Please review the attached document before the
call</div>
<div class="">6) Finding a regular time for TF calls</div>
<div class="">7) AOB</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Cheers</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Antony</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">###</div>
<b class="">
<div class=""><b class=""><br class="">
</b></div>
RIPE Accountability�Task Force Meeting Notes<br class="">
30 November 2016</b><br class="">
<br class="">
<b class="">Attendees:�</b><br class="">
<br class="">
Athina Fragkouli, Antony Gollan, Malcolm�Hutty, Alexander Isavnin,
Nurani Nimpuno, Paul Rendek, Wim Rullens, William�Sylvester, Filiz
Yilmaz<br class="">
<br class="">
<b class="">Agenda:<br class="">
</b><br class="">
<b class="">1)�Introduction / finalise the agenda<br class="">
2)�Selection of chair<br class="">
3) Scope�of the Task Force<br class="">
4) Deliverables<br class="">
5)�Openness and transparency<br class="">
6)�Information for website<br class="">
7)�Next meeting call<br class="">
8) AOB</b><br class="">
<br class="">
�<br class="">
<b class="">1) Introduction�/ finalise the agenda</b><br class="">
<br class="">
Athina added another item (5) � about how�transparent they wanted
to be in terms of allowing observers to join Task Force�calls or
participate on the mailing list.<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<b class="">2) Selection�of Chair</b><br class="">
<br class="">
Alexander nominated Athina as Chair.�Malcolm and Nurani supported
her.<br class="">
<br class="">
Nurani said they should have a RIPE�community member for co-Chair.
She suggested Hans Petter Holen could take this�role.<br class="">
<br class="">
Paul agreed they needed someone from the�community, and suggested
someone from the ASO AC.<br class="">
<br class="">
Filiz said she was happy to help chair, but�couldn�t commit
without knowing what the time commitment would be.<br class="">
<br class="">
Paul said the RIPE NCC would do the heavy�lifting. The Chair would
just need to help the group make decisions and keep�things moving
forward.<br class="">
<br class="">
Filiz said they needed Hans Petter at the�helm, but was happy to
assist him in this. If he declined then they could find�another
solution.<br class="">
<br class="">
Alexander offered to help co-chair.<br class="">
<br class="">
William said he could also help with co-chairing,�especially if
Hans Petter was not available.<br class="">
<br class="">
Athina suggested they not decide this on�the call. She could act
as interim Chair in the meantime until they had an�opportunity to
ask Hans Petter and discuss this further.<br class="">
<br class="">
Nurani suggested they define the scope�first, which would help
them to understand the time commitments involved � this�could be a
month, a year, or they might end up as Chair of a new WG.<br
class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<b class="">3) Scope�of the Task Force</b><br class="">
<br class="">
Athina suggested they do a round and give�comments.<br class="">
<br class="">
Alexander said accountability was primarily�related to legal or
commercial entities, but RIPE was not like these entities.�When
they moved into the ground of deliverables, they were stepping
into the�realm of governments and police, etc. RIPE was not a
typical entity and perhaps�they should start from there.<br
class="">
<br class="">
William said they needed to think what the�current status of
accountability was � who the stakeholders were, who they
had�accountability with. He noted that when registrars and
registries were�introduced into the domain space there were a lot
of inbuilt accountability�measures right from the start.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Filiz agreed with William and said�communities could have
accountability even when they didn�t have legally�established
identities. They could look at things like how the
community�selected Chairs and�other individuals � this could be
expressed somehow. They�had been dealing with accountability
issues over past several years and the�Task Force could document
and track these so outsiders could�make sense of them.<br class="">
<br class="">
**Action Item: Filiz suggested an action point should be�for each
of them to come up with a few topics they wanted the TF to address
and�share this on the mailing list.<br class="">
<br class="">
Nurani said it might be good to put this�into a context.
Accountability questions hadn�t come from nowhere. RIPE had�been
improving its structures over the past 25 years, simply because it
wanted�high-performing structures. A lot of this work had been
done over the years ��some of this could be improved, but a lot of
it just needed to be explained to�the outside world. A lot of
these questions were�triggered when coming up for�the Number
Community�s proposal as part of the IANA transition and the
CRISP�team had been interviewed by the US Government�s
accountability office. While�they were�satisfied with their
answers, there were a lot of assumptions people�had about the
community�s accountability that were not correct. A lot
of�CCWG-Accountability�s work had come back to the RIPE�community
as well, and the�CCWG wanted to impose their own accountability
measures onto RIPE. RIPE didn�t�have anything to hide and didn�t
need to be in a defensive position.<br class="">
<br class="">
Malcolm agreed with Filiz and Nurani. He�suggested they identify
what they were trying to do with these structures ��what values
they were trying to uphold, such as transparency or openness.
Once�these�values had been identified, they could identify the
mechanisms that were used�to achieve them and provide an overview
of how they might be improved.<br class="">
<br class="">
Athina said there was an understanding that�the RIPE community was
accountable and did have its documents in place. Maybe�they needed
to review what was there and see if anything was missing.�RIPE
had�to be able to explain how it worked, so it wasn�t seen as
avoiding�accountability questions.��She added that�they were
noting everyone�s comments and could use this to create a
consistent�scope.<br class="">
<br class="">
Paul replied to Alexander�s earlier comment�that RIPE didn�t have
the accountability of other entities. He said that after�the
transition RIPE was now the body that made important decisions and
this had�exacerbated things. It was important to get this
accountability effort off the�ground, because they needed to be
looking at things that were further off. He�said they needed to
separate CCWG-Accountability from RIPE accountability.<br class="">
<br class="">
**Action Item: Paul said the RIPE NCC could examine�areas to see
where they already had accountability features in place. If
they�could map this out and show it to the Task Force, they could
use this as a�starting point�to work from.<br class="">
<br class="">
Malcolm supported Paul�s suggestion.<br class="">
<br class="">
Athina said they could discuss this further�on the mailing list.<br
class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<b class="">4)�Deliverables<br class="">
</b><br class="">
Athina understood that the deliverables�would be the review they
would make, along with any new documentation that�would be needed.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Malcolm said they could break this down�into two separate
categories: 1) A review of how things currently stood, which�would
result in a report with recommendations. 2) Communications
materials for�different audiences (to be developed after the
review was completed). Some of�this would be for external
audiences like governments, and some would be for�the RIPE
community itself, particularly�newcomers. He hoped the RIPE NCC
could�do the heavy lifting on the development of these materials.<br
class="">
<br class="">
Athina said the RIPE NCC was committed to�providing any materials
that would be needed.<br class="">
<br class="">
Nurani agreed with Malcolm � mapping,�review, suggested
improvements, and communications efforts (noting efforts�might
involve more than just materials). They should also consider
the�possibility of�an external view � which might help them to
identify blind spots�or gaps. This neutral party would have to
chosen carefully.<br class="">
<br class="">
William agreed with Malcolm and Nurani and�said the review should
include recommendations. A third party would add�credibility as a
stop-gap to ensure they weren�t missing key pieces.
The�deliverable should be an accountability scorecard or some
measure � because�accountability was not a finite value but
something that would change over�time. He said they should also
think about�community policies that might need�to be established
or maintained, possibly by a WG. This was something to�consider,
though it might be that accountability was just in the
community�s�DNA and�wouldn�t require a policy.<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<b class="">5)�Openness and transparency<br class="">
</b><br class="">
Athina asked how they wanted to operate in�terms of allowing
outside observers to subscribe/participate on the mailing�list or
attend Task Force calls.
<div class=""><br class="">
Malcolm contrasted the models of RIPE WGs�that were open to
participation by anyone (including casual one-off�participation)
� vs the CCWG � where there was open participation with
no�limitations,�but you had to officially join. While he thought
the Task Force�should always be open, he didn�t have a strong
view on which model should be�used.<br class="">
<br class="">
Nurani said they should report back to the�community and the
material should be publicly archived. Her only concern was
if�there was information that came up in a review or external
report that would�put the RIPE community in a difficult position
� they would need to handle this�in a sensitive way. She could
see why they might not want to allow outside�comments on a
conference call, but a good chair�could handle this.
She�supported generally being as open as possible.<br class="">
<br class="">
Filiz agreed that membership should remain�open. But if people
were not members, they should be limited to observing.
She�didn�t want a situation where there was interference from
observers who�were�missing context. She agreed they could allow
observers to make comments at the�end of meetings if they had
good chairs. She suggested they open the mailing�list for posts
so the Task Force could�receive comments from observers �
but�make it so that observers couldn�t receive emails from the
list.<br class="">
<br class="">
Athina noted that they would still have�access to the public
archives.�</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
Alexander noted that they had no deliverables to make �open�
which was�why he suggested they postpone this question.<br
class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<b class="">6) Information for�website</b><br class="">
<br class="">
Athina noted that other Task Forces typically included things
like�scope, participants, email archives, etc. Given that they
had no scope at this�point, she suggested they include on this
page the structure�of the Task Force�along with participants�
names. She said they would develop something and share�this with
the Task Force.<br class="">
<br class="">
�<br class="">
<b class="">7) Next�meeting call</b><br class="">
<br class="">
It was agreed that they would run the�meetings monthly, but
would have one more meeting in December. Athina said she�would
create a doodle poll and share it with the group.<br class="">
<br class="">
�<br class="">
<b class="">8) AOB<br class="">
</b><br class="">
Filiz said they could move the chair�selection discussion to the
next meeting. The group agreed.<br class="">
<br class="">
Athina said this would be an agenda point�for the next meeting,
and they could have some discussion on the mailing list�to
prepare.<br class="">
<br class="">
END OF MEETING.<br class="">
<br class="">
�<br class="">
<b class="">Action�Items</b><br class="">
<br class="">
<b class="">20163011-1</b>�- Task force members to each�come up
with a few topics they want the Task Force to address and share
this on�the mailing list.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<b class="">20163011-2 -�</b>The RIPE NCC to map out areas
where�accountability features are already.</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>