[ec-tf] Re: [Fwd: ec-tf meeting minutes]

[Malcolm Hutty malcolm@localhost]

The following is the draft formal minute of the the Taskforce meeting on
Monday. Many thanks to our scribe, Chris Buckridge, for keeping such
thorough meeting notes.

If anyone has any corrections please let me know within 7 days.

Malcolm.


 Enhanced Cooperation Task Force minutes
 5 May 2008
 Palace Hotel, Berlin

The Chair, Malcolm Hutty, called the meeting to order. He emphasised
that this is a small group dedicated to a defined task, and noted
that he has circulated an agenda and a draft of the Enhanced
Cooperation-task force report. He outlined the meeting agenda, to
which there were no additions.

The Chair discussed the background to the task force and the term
Enhanced Cooperation. The task force was formed to demonstrate to the
world the position of the RIPE community and its contribution to
Enhanced Cooperation. The task force is not designed to "do" Enhanced
Cooperation – this is done by the RIPE NCC and is already ongoing. The
task force's report will comment on what is good about the current
activities, and suggest what might be done in the future. This will
then be reported to, and hopefully adopted by the RIPE community. This
document would be a very valuable and powerful tool in establishing
the RIPE community's position.

During the task force work there have arisen two competing views on
the way forward – one favours a small group to produce a report
quickly; the other sees the document as representing a wider group,
and that it should, therefore, have input from a wider group. The
Chair's role has been to combine these points of view, and this has
involved forming a sub-group of more expert members of the task force
as a Drafting Group. The members of the Drafting Group were read into
the record.

The task force assented to these organisational matters.

The Chair moved onto the matter of the document. A draft of the
report has been circulated to the whole task force.

The report's goal is to put the RIPE community and the RIPE NCC into
a context that illustrates the reasons for the existing systems of
administration and governance. The strategy involves outlining the
needs of the Internet community (specifically IP address uniqueness
and address planning coordination) and the ways in which bottom-up
processes, and the administrative structures which facilitate them,
meet this need. Opportunities for evolution of processes and
activities to meet new requirements from the various stakeholders are then
reviewed in this context. The Chair again noted that the role of the
task force
is not to micromanage the Enhanced Cooperation activities of the RIPE NCC.

Jim Reid noted that the draft paper is an excellent statement of what
we do and the community consensus on the basis for bottom-up governance,
but that the concept of Enhanced Cooperation needs further
elaboration, and we need to consider the way forward. He suggested
that it may be time to start engaging with other stakeholders and see
what they think of Enhanced Cooperation and what forums would best
suit them. The roundtables for certain governments are working well,
but not all governments attend, and that kind of forum may not be
culturally compatible with all governments in the region. It would be
good to reach out to the non-participating governments and bodies and
see what sort of forums would work for them.

Patrik Fältström noted three areas of Enhanced Cooperation. The
first, which the document does well, outlines the existing Enhanced
Cooperation processes etc. The second is a discussion in the RIPE
community on how Enhanced Cooperation processes can be improved, and
this may be a separate discussion item (including issues such as how
do we bring more people in, what is being done now). The third is
that some individuals on the public sector side would like to
interact more with the technical community, and possibly we need a
forum to have discussions with people outside the traditional RIPE
community.

Nurani Nimpuno noted that while it's important to agree on the
process, it is also important to have a clear path forward – how do
we want to interact with governments, regulators etc.?

Paul Wilson, as Chair of the NRO, noted that the NRO produced a
report under the banner of Enhanced Cooperation, but called it
Continuing Cooperation; this was in response to the call for such a
document in 2005. The NRO received a message from the UN earlier in
the year inviting the NRO to provide an annual performance report –
the NRO provided a reply that included a letter and copies of the
existing report, as that outlined the longstanding cooperative
activities of the RIRs. There is a desire not to have the terms of
debate dictated to us by other parties, and Paul noted that by using
the term Enhanced Cooperation we are playing along with a term not
defined by the RIRs.

The Chair thanked Paul for outlining the letter from the UN, and
noted that the document produced by the task force would hopefully
provide the UN (and similar bodies) with some more clarity on the
position of the NRO, and especially the RIPE community.

The Chair moved onto the subject of next steps, and noted that the
report being produced should make some suggestions of next steps, and this
will possibly include proposing the creation of a working group. He
asked whether there should be a detailed analysis of existing/
potential activities as part of the task force, or if this would be
better considered by a working group.

Nigel Titley suggested that the task force should provide a broader
analysis, and that anything more detailed be tasked to a working
group. Jim Reid agreed that the task force activity should be
completed as soon as possible, and a working group be formed, but not
with the expectation that the working group would be where public
sector stakeholders would participate.

Remco van Mook agreed that completing the task force task quickly was
important, and that we need to clarify where authority lies for other
stakeholders – if there is a working group, can a government make
arrangements with anyone from that working group? Who would they
contact? Where does authority lie - with RIPE or with the NCC? Malcolm
noted that ultimately authority lies with the community, but that
authority is delegated to the RIPE NCC, and using the document being
produced by the task force to make this explicit in the task force
will assist governments.

The Chair noted his own doubts about the potential for the working
group to serve as an outreach tool. The role of the working group
would instead be to define the strategic approach. Nigel Titley agreed.

The Chair suggested that there seems to be agreement that the
document requires further development in the section on Enhanced
Cooperation activities. He noted though that the statements about
future activities should be kept broad and strategic.

Carsten Schiefner asked how this document will be kept up-to-date.
Paul Rendek noted that a RIPE Document could be produced from the
task force report; a working group could suggest any updates to the
document, which could then be made by the RIPE NCC. Malcolm noted
that the Anti-Spam working group has a similar arrangement.

Jim Reid raised the need for a charter for such a working group.
Malcolm noted that there is a draft at the end of the existing
document, a very broad statement that incorporates a lot of the
terminology of the UN.

Nurani Nimpuno noted that while it is important to look at improving
our existing processes, there is a danger in not sufficiently
acknowledging the success of these processes to date. Setting up such
a working group may undercut the argument that we already have
sufficient Enhanced Cooperation activities and structures. She feels
there are processes in place, and the document is a good way of
communicating this to the world, but we don't need a process that
responds specifically to the WSIS demand for Enhanced Cooperation,
and this was the point of the NRO response to the UN. She argued that
should a working group be formed, it should not be Enhanced
Cooperation-specific.

Lars-Johan Liman noted that there is a need for something, perhaps
not a working group, but a new interface that reaches out toward
governments etc. – there are existing channels, but they may not be
formal enough. Malcolm noted, however, that there seems to be
consensus that the working group would not be the channel to
governments, but would rather be a community forum to discuss RIPE
community involvement in Enhanced Cooperation.

Patrik Fältström strongly supported discarding the term Enhanced
Cooperation – he noted that this term is usually used only between
governments (at least by governments). He also suggested adding the
maintenance of the document as a task for the working group, and he
believes the task force should move ahead with proposing the
formation of a working group, and he is somewhat optimistic that
perhaps a working group would be a suitable place for governments to
give presentations – having such a specific forum in the RIPE Meeting
may make it easier for people in the public sector to get approval to
attend the RIPE Meeting.

Remco van Mook suggested "Structured Cooperation" as a title for the
working group.

Lars-Johan Liman noted that the working group may not be very busy,
but it would be a good forum to have available, even if it lay dormant for
some of the time. He also noted that being able to point to the
existence of such a forum would be politically useful.

Marton Hajdu from the European Commission noted that it is sometimes
difficult for people from government to attend, and agreed a
different name for the working group would be preferable.

The Chair noted that there is a consensus that the term Enhanced
Cooperation should not be used in the title or charter of the
working group.

Paul Rendek noted that the RIPE NCC is already receiving a lot of
questions regarding RIPE position on various issues related to public/
private sector relations, and agreed that the NCC does not generally
use the term Enhanced Cooperation where possible. He noted that the
task force needs to be inclusive of all kinds of cooperation with
other stakeholders. He also noted the need for some kind of channel
with the community to discuss these issues, and he noted that the
RIPE NCC is ready and willing to support such a working group.

The Chair noted that there is support from the task force for the
document to continue to be developed. He will report that we are on
track, with a clearer understanding of where we are going, but that
we are not ready to present the final document yet. This will be
ready in advance of the next RIPE Meeting, and will be presented in
October to the plenary.

Jim Reid suggested that there also need to be deadlines and charter
discussions regarding the working group. Remco van Mook suggested
that the charter be prepared and presented by the end of this week,
and the working group be formed by the next meeting.

Malcolm Hutty noted (as an individual) that he feels it is
dangerous to form a working group without an idea of the charter. He
feels that there would need to be a further meeting of the task force to
solidify the charter before the end of the week if it is to be
presented at RIPE 56. Carsten Shiefner also feels that forming a
working group before the document is finalised would be premature.
Nurani Nimpuno noted that it is important that in forming a group to
promote our cooperation the task force be very open and transparent –
this could mean sharing drafts of the document with the community
before final endorsement. Jim Reid suggested reporting that the
document that is in the final stages of preparation, and that the
task force feels a working group will be needed, but that the charter
is still being discussed. Feedback from the community on this would
be welcome, and then the charter of the working group will be fully
formed by RIPE 57, and the task force wrapped up.

Jim Reid suggested that the plan be to wrap up the task force by RIPE
57, and establish a working group at RIPE 57 once a charter and remit
of activities are established.

The Chair then summarised that the consensus appeared to be to report
that the task force believed that a working group should be created at
RIPE 57 rather than at RIPE 56, but we should be ready to create a
working group at RIPE 57 and be prepared for a working group meeting at that
time. He noted that the task force needs to do the necessary
intersessional work promptly to achieve this goal.

The meeting assented to this summary.

Remco van Mook noted that it is important to move quickly – as long
as there is a working group in place by the next meeting, he is happy
to take due consideration.

There was an action item noted for the NCC to attach the draft to the
task force web page.

Paul Rendek also noted that the NCC could put the document into Draft
RIPE Document form if this was requested, or there could be mailing
lists set up. Malcolm undertook to liaise with the NCC on format and
process; the existing mailing list is sufficient for the task force
itself, but he would consult the NCC on publishing the task force's
proposals to the wider community.

The Chair asked for any other business; there being no further
comments he thanked all participants for their contribution and the
NCC for its support, and the session was closed.