| Friday, 21 May, 10:30 - 11:30 (UTC+2) | |
| Chair: | Mirjam Kühne |
| Scribe: | Alun Davies |
| Status: | Final |
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe82.ripe.net/archives/video/613
Mirjam reported on the RIPE Chair Team's activities since the last RIPE Meeting, including the publication of additional documentation on the RIPE website, recommended changes to the PDP and follow-up to the recommendations made in the RIPE NomCom report 2020. Before introducing the agenda for the session, Mirjam also emphasised that the RIPE Chair Team will be working to foster greater engagement and inclusivity in RIPE community activities moving forward.
There were no questions.
This presentation is available at:
https://ripe82.ripe.net/archives/video/614
Shane looked back at the formation of the RIPE Database Task Force to reiterate its motivation and goals and outlined the work that had been done so far. He noted that the task force are still working to add more clarity and context to their draft document, and that no decision had yet been made on the issue of publishing legal addresses in the RIPE Database. The TF plans to publish its next draft in Q3 2021.
Elvis Velea (V4Escrow LLC) said he was interested to talk about the slide regarding historic data. He pointed to requests from Denis Walker regarding NWI-2 (on historical data in the DB) and asked whether the DB-TF have an opinion on that. He added, it would be good to provide more historic data, preferably cleaned up. Shane replied there's no consensus or preferred recommendation on this right now. But there are concerns around this. For example, there are no explicit warnings in the RIPE DB right now that when you delete objects, the data can still be there. This is something that still requires further attention.
Elvis went on to say that brokers collect a lot of data about IP resources. So, he said, we shouldn't worry too much about whether an object has been deleted. It's a good thing that the history is available. It can help the customers understand which IP addresses they would like to use later on. Shane asked whether this is kind of like when you buy a used car - you want to know who drove it before. Elvis said, something like that. Shane added that the TF can certainly discuss this further.
This presentation is available at:
https://ripe82.ripe.net/archives/video/615
The presentation from Leo provided an update from the RIPE Code of Conduct Task Force, reporting back from the BoF that was held on Tuesday evening at RIPE 82. Feedback from the BoF indicated a need for a larger, more diverse CoC team, and there was some call to seek advice from other communities for ongoing improvement to the process.
Daniel Karrenberg (RIPE NCC) asked if it would be possible that any discussion about community business could happen after this agenda point as it would be a shame if community discussion was cut short. Randy Bush (RGnet OÜ) wanted to find out more about what kinds of things in the code of conduct itself need to change and what has been learned about the code itself. Leo answered that it's useful to have examples of the kind of behaviour people should and shouldn't exhibit, but the code needs to go beyond specific cases and lay out principles. But then the code shouldn't be an absolute set of rules on what you can and can't do. Those enforcing the code will need to take an intelligent, careful approach in its implementation. He added, many people have made silly mistakes in conversations at the microphone or elsewhere, and they're not always clear how to resolve that, but the trusted contacts and the CoC team can help mediate and resolve things. So the code is not intended as a basis for judicial, investigative action - not some sort of punitive judicial code - but rather a way to mediate the relationships people have with each other at meetings.
Vesna Manojlovic (RIPE NCC) added that the other reason to have a CoC is to make sure people feel safe. So if people feel harmed, it's important this won't be tolerated by the community. Being inclusive, and having something that stands for this, is vital is we want to be inclusive.
Randy clarified that he did not question the usefulness of a code itself. But he was interested in the actual content of the code and the learnings of the TF rather than the processes.
Sandra Murphy (Parsons) said that the slides for Shane's Database TF said each TF member was assigned a topic - did the CoC TF condense feedback into a list of topics? Leo answered that the team created a table tracking what input different people gave on different topics - that was then used to check with people whether their input had been properly understood and responded to.
Daniel Karrenberg (RIPE NCC) expressed his support for the way the CoC TF conducted its work. He felt that the input he gave, as well as the input from others, was always heard. He very much appreciates the work the CoC TF has done.
This presentation is available at:
https://ripe82.ripe.net/archives/video/616
Nurani Nimpuno gave an update from the IANA Review Committee. Listing ASN requests from 2020, she showed that the committee's report for the year had found that all requests were fulfilled accurately and on time. No concerning patterns were detected and no issues were raised by the community. She ended by emphasising - when it comes to this topic – boring is good.
There were no questions.
End of the session.