From malcolm at linx.net Mon Nov 5 14:30:38 2007 From: malcolm at linx.net (Malcolm Hutty) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 13:30:38 +0000 Subject: [ec-tf] EC-TF meeting minutes, DRAFT Message-ID: <472F1AFE.6060509@linx.net> Here are the draft minutes of the meeting at RIPE55. Would anyone who would like to propose any alterations or additions please let me know as soon as possible? My thanks to Chris Buckridge of the NCC for scribing. Regards, Malcolm Hutty Chair, Enhanced Co-operation Taskforce. RIPE Task Force on Enhanced Cooperation Meeting minutes, RIPE 55, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Meeting commenced 14:33 Malcolm outlined the agenda and recapped the task force charter. He noted that the task force is not a replacement or way around the PDP, it will not in any way supplant the NCC or the Board, but that it will produce a report on the RIPE community's sense of what should be done regarding Enhanced Cooperation. Malcolm noted that it would be useful to have an attendance sheet that would allow attendees to be contacted, but that people should not feel they have to sign. G?za Turchanyi noted that it is important for the task force to produce something concrete. Malcolm noted that the RIPE NCC is also working in this area already, and that the task force will be offering advice and guidance on Enhanced Cooperation activities, rather than actually conducting them. Patrik F?ltstr?m asked for clarification on the aim of the taskforce, and suggested that perhaps a working group would be a more logical forum. Jim Reid suggested that the task force could have a relatively brief existence, and could perhaps issue a statement for the IGF meeting in Rio in two weeks time. This statement could be along the lines of "the RIPE community is addressing the issue of Enhanced Cooperation, and this task force is an example of that". It was suggested and seconded that discussing the charter and immediate timelines ahead of membership issues would be useful. Malcolm cautioned that the Rio meeting is very close, and that planning to issue any substantial statement would be unwise. He also noted that this would increase the expectations on the task force at later IGF meetings. Jim confirmed that he had only intended a statement on the creation of the task force, and Malcolm suggested that the NRO could deliver any statement, as well as pointing to the instigation of the task force as evidence of ongoing work. Mirjam Kuehne suggested that the Internet community's administrative structures are already confusing for external parties, and adding a further structure might exacerbate this. She suggested that a working group or plenary statement might be more useful. Malcolm noted that according to his discussions with RIPE NCC staff, establishing a task force was the appropriate way to start work on this subject, and that this task force might then lead to the creation of a working group. Patrik noted that the charter is not clear, but that he would support a charter that specified that the task force would look at whether existing RIPE NCC processes were sufficient and evaluate the potential of a working group. Ischa noted that the RIRs would be at the IGF as the NRO, no under the RIPE banner. Malcolm noted that the task force was created at RIPE 54, so it is really a matter now of deciding what will be done by the task force and how. Ischa asked whether the motivation for forming the task force formation was as a response to a perceived a gap in the work currently being done. Malcolm responded that this was not the case, but that it was important to be seen to be doing work in this area. The task force is a visible explanation of how the RIR community works, and could illustrate the bottom-up process in action. Mirjam was noted that there are already open structures, and maybe people need to be directed to these, for example, mailing lists, RIR meetings etc. Patrik noted that the there was some confusion about whether the task force would be involved in policy. Nurani noted that this is not about creating a second body, but showing people how they can participate in the existing spaces. Jim Reid noted that we also need to find new ways to talk to the external parties in the language they understand about issues that are important to them. Patrick disagreed, and believes the existing cooperation between the RIPE NCC and the regulatory bodies is very successful, as demonstrated by the recent Roundtable meeting. Malcolm noted that this task force could be a forum for evaluating the success of activities such as the Roundtable meetings; Patrik agreed with this and supported the proposed role of the task force. Malcolm raised the issue of membership and whether to have an open or closed membership. Open membership would imply involve submitting iterative drafts to an open mailing list, like an IETF task force; a closed group would rely on a limited number of people working on the outcome, and would then present to the Plenary. Patrik's preference is that the task force be tasked with evaluating the existing and proposed structures for EC, and that it should be done in a closed group, because the scope for confusion on this subject is very easy. Jim agreed, and noted that a closed list might allow more honest discussion. Keith Mitchell noted that it was best to have things as open as possible unless there is a reason otherwise; he suggested a compromise of having nominated task force members who are responsible for specific deliverables, but public deliberations. This was supported by several others in the room. There is a general expectation that the mailing list will be publicly readable; there were no objections to this. Paul Rendek noted that it is possible to set up a list so that people can watch the deliberations of a closed task force. He noted though, that this work will need to be down quite quickly, and a limited number of people will facilitate this. He also agreed with Patrik that adding this structure could be confusing for people external to the RIPE community, particularly hen considering something like a statement at the IGF. Malcolm noted that having a fix duration will mean that after the final report is delivered, the task force will cease to exist. Jim agreed that this task force will not "take on a life of its own". Patrik noted that if the task force still exists at the next RIPE Meeting he would be disappointed, and that the goals of the task force should be able to be met in the very short term. He suggested that the task force's work might start with a survey on what is already being done within the RIPE community regarding Enhanced Cooperation. Malcolm noted that he had planned for the RIPE Meeting Plenary to give its input to the document, which would mean the task force was not wrapped up by the next meeting. Patrik feels that this is too slow, though he accepted the suggestion that a first draft of the report be prepared well before the next RIPE meeting; the formal death and implementation of the task force could extend beyond that. Ischa noted that the task force could define its own timeline. Jim suggested that the strategy be to compile a report ASAP, ideally in time for the ICANN meeting in New Delhi. Malcolm noted that while the work needs to be done in a timely fashion, there should also be a recognition that the work must be done properly. Malcolm emphasized the need for diversity in the make-up of the task force, especially in terms of experience, sectors, geography etc. G?za suggested that Malcolm himself suggest some people to be on the task force. Fearghas McKay noted that the demands of time may also affect the diversity, particularly in regard to the smaller groups working on very short-term sub-projects. Mirjam noted that it would be best to give some idea to the amount of time commitment required, and that perhaps a co-Chair would be useful. Malcolm suggested a separate list on which members of the public could talk in parallel about the same issues. Leo Vegoda noted that a parallel group of people watching the task force work in progress might not be very useful. There was an observation that if discussion on a parallel mailing list differed significantly from the task force outcome it would appear that the community had not been listened to. There was a further comment that any mechanisms or strategies decided on must meet the needs of the bodies with whom the RIPE is hoping to cooperate. Malcolm closed the meeting, and summarised that the task force needs to be short term, produce a report early, and utilize a limited number of people within the task force, though the task force itself may recommend a working group be established. There is a preference for a small group acting urgently, with less focus on diversity. He noted that people signing up to the task force mailing list are being regarded as prospective members, and will be contacted at later date. From nurani at autonomica.se Mon Nov 5 15:24:36 2007 From: nurani at autonomica.se (Nurani Nimpuno) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 15:24:36 +0100 Subject: [ec-tf] EC-TF meeting minutes, DRAFT In-Reply-To: <472F1AFE.6060509@linx.net> References: <472F1AFE.6060509@linx.net> Message-ID: <42053234-6DAC-437D-999E-A53FB119FD3F@autonomica.se> Are these internal or public minutes? I presume they are public, if so, maybe they should be summarised a little more? Nurani On 5 nov 2007, at 14.30, Malcolm Hutty wrote: > Here are the draft minutes of the meeting at RIPE55. > > Would anyone who would like to propose any alterations or additions > please let me know as soon as possible? > > My thanks to Chris Buckridge of the NCC for scribing. > > Regards, > > Malcolm Hutty > Chair, Enhanced Co-operation Taskforce. > > > > RIPE Task Force on Enhanced Cooperation > Meeting minutes, RIPE 55, Amsterdam, The Netherlands > > Meeting commenced 14:33 > > Malcolm outlined the agenda and recapped the task force charter. He > noted that the task force is not a replacement or way around the > PDP, it > will not in any way supplant the NCC or the Board, but that it will > produce a report on the RIPE community's sense of what should be done > regarding Enhanced Cooperation. > > Malcolm noted that it would be useful to have an attendance sheet that > would allow attendees to be contacted, but that people should not feel > they have to sign. > > G?za Turchanyi noted that it is important for the task force to > produce > something concrete. Malcolm noted that the RIPE NCC is also working in > this area already, and that the task force will be offering advice and > guidance on Enhanced Cooperation activities, rather than actually > conducting them. > > Patrik F?ltstr?m asked for clarification on the aim of the taskforce, > and suggested that perhaps a working group would be a more logical > forum. > > Jim Reid suggested that the task force could have a relatively brief > existence, and could perhaps issue a statement for the IGF meeting in > Rio in two weeks time. This statement could be along the lines of "the > RIPE community is addressing the issue of Enhanced Cooperation, and > this > task force is an example of that". > > It was suggested and seconded that discussing the charter and > immediate > timelines ahead of membership issues would be useful. > > Malcolm cautioned that the Rio meeting is very close, and that > planning > to issue any substantial statement would be unwise. He also noted that > this would increase the expectations on the task force at later IGF > meetings. Jim confirmed that he had only intended a statement on the > creation of the task force, and Malcolm suggested that the NRO could > deliver any statement, as well as pointing to the instigation of the > task force as evidence of ongoing work. > > Mirjam Kuehne suggested that the Internet community's administrative > structures are already confusing for external parties, and adding a > further structure might exacerbate this. She suggested that a working > group or plenary statement might be more useful. Malcolm noted that > according to his discussions with RIPE NCC staff, establishing a task > force was the appropriate way to start work on this subject, and that > this task force might then lead to the creation of a working group. > > Patrik noted that the charter is not clear, but that he would > support a > charter that specified that the task force would look at whether > existing RIPE NCC processes were sufficient and evaluate the potential > of a working group. > > Ischa noted that the RIRs would be at the IGF as the NRO, no under the > RIPE banner. > > Malcolm noted that the task force was created at RIPE 54, so it is > really a matter now of deciding what will be done by the task force > and how. > > Ischa asked whether the motivation for forming the task force > formation > was as a response to a perceived a gap in the work currently being > done. > Malcolm responded that this was not the case, but that it was > important > to be seen to be doing work in this area. The task force is a visible > explanation of how the RIR community works, and could illustrate the > bottom-up process in action. > > Mirjam was noted that there are already open structures, and maybe > people need to be directed to these, for example, mailing lists, RIR > meetings etc. > > Patrik noted that the there was some confusion about whether the task > force would be involved in policy. > > Nurani noted that this is not about creating a second body, but > showing > people how they can participate in the existing spaces. Jim Reid noted > that we also need to find new ways to talk to the external parties in > the language they understand about issues that are important to them. > Patrick disagreed, and believes the existing cooperation between the > RIPE NCC and the regulatory bodies is very successful, as demonstrated > by the recent Roundtable meeting. Malcolm noted that this task force > could be a forum for evaluating the success of activities such as the > Roundtable meetings; Patrik agreed with this and supported the > proposed > role of the task force. > > Malcolm raised the issue of membership and whether to have an open or > closed membership. Open membership would imply involve submitting > iterative drafts to an open mailing list, like an IETF task force; a > closed group would rely on a limited number of people working on the > outcome, and would then present to the Plenary. Patrik's preference is > that the task force be tasked with evaluating the existing and > proposed > structures for EC, and that it should be done in a closed group, > because > the scope for confusion on this subject is very easy. Jim agreed, and > noted that a closed list might allow more honest discussion. Keith > Mitchell noted that it was best to have things as open as possible > unless there is a reason otherwise; he suggested a compromise of > having > nominated task force members who are responsible for specific > deliverables, but public deliberations. This was supported by several > others in the room. > > There is a general expectation that the mailing list will be publicly > readable; there were no objections to this. Paul Rendek noted that > it is > possible to set up a list so that people can watch the > deliberations of > a closed task force. He noted though, that this work will need to be > down quite quickly, and a limited number of people will facilitate > this. > He also agreed with Patrik that adding this structure could be > confusing > for people external to the RIPE community, particularly hen > considering > something like a statement at the IGF. > > Malcolm noted that having a fix duration will mean that after the > final > report is delivered, the task force will cease to exist. Jim agreed > that > this task force will not "take on a life of its own". > > Patrik noted that if the task force still exists at the next RIPE > Meeting he would be disappointed, and that the goals of the task force > should be able to be met in the very short term. He suggested that the > task force's work might start with a survey on what is already being > done within the RIPE community regarding Enhanced Cooperation. Malcolm > noted that he had planned for the RIPE Meeting Plenary to give its > input > to the document, which would mean the task force was not wrapped up by > the next meeting. Patrik feels that this is too slow, though he > accepted > the suggestion that a first draft of the report be prepared well > before > the next RIPE meeting; the formal death and implementation of the task > force could extend beyond that. Ischa noted that the task force could > define its own timeline. > > Jim suggested that the strategy be to compile a report ASAP, > ideally in > time for the ICANN meeting in New Delhi. Malcolm noted that while the > work needs to be done in a timely fashion, there should also be a > recognition that the work must be done properly. > > Malcolm emphasized the need for diversity in the make-up of the task > force, especially in terms of experience, sectors, geography etc. G?za > suggested that Malcolm himself suggest some people to be on the task > force. Fearghas McKay noted that the demands of time may also > affect the > diversity, particularly in regard to the smaller groups working on > very > short-term sub-projects. Mirjam noted that it would be best to give > some > idea to the amount of time commitment required, and that perhaps a > co-Chair would be useful. > > Malcolm suggested a separate list on which members of the public could > talk in parallel about the same issues. Leo Vegoda noted that a > parallel > group of people watching the task force work in progress might not be > very useful. There was an observation that if discussion on a parallel > mailing list differed significantly from the task force outcome it > would > appear that the community had not been listened to. There was a > further > comment that any mechanisms or strategies decided on must meet the > needs > of the bodies with whom the RIPE is hoping to cooperate. > > Malcolm closed the meeting, and summarised that the task force > needs to > be short term, produce a report early, and utilize a limited number of > people within the task force, though the task force itself may > recommend > a working group be established. There is a preference for a small > group > acting urgently, with less focus on diversity. He noted that people > signing up to the task force mailing list are being regarded as > prospective members, and will be contacted at later date. > From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Nov 8 14:33:57 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 16:33:57 +0300 Subject: [ec-tf] gov't attendees at meetings Message-ID: hello all, Had a hunch that the Regional Meetings and other NCC outreach efforts would have increased gov'ts attendance at RIPE meetings, so I made a spreadsheet (attached) of the number of Civil Society (defined as non-profit organisations, but really all "Internet Community orgs) attendees vs. gov't vs private sector/biz attendees comparing a pre-outreach/2002 mtg (RIPE 42) vs post-outreach/2007 mtg (RIPE 55). I was surprised to find fewer government folk at 2007 mtg, even though the number of attendees (n) was larger. In any case, no statistical analysis done, just raw counts n percentages. RIPE 42 RIPE 55 CS GOV biz n CS GOV biz n 142 15 133 290 162 7 162 331 0.48966 0.052 0.459 % 0.48943 0.02115 0.489426 % I had hoped this might be helpful, but perhaps it requires analysis of all meetings, (including Regional) and there are difficulties determinig about whois biz vs. gov vs CS. Feedback welcome. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ripe_attendees.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 103936 bytes Desc: not available URL: From roland at ripe.net Fri Nov 9 12:52:46 2007 From: roland at ripe.net (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 11:52:46 +0000 Subject: [ec-tf] gov't attendees at meetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 16:33:57 local time, on Thu, 8 Nov 2007, McTim remarked: >Had a hunch that the Regional Meetings and other NCC outreach efforts >would have >increased gov'ts attendance at RIPE meetings, so I made a spreadsheet >(attached) of the number of Civil Society (defined as non-profit >organisations, but really all "Internet Community orgs) attendees vs. >gov't vs private sector/biz attendees comparing a pre-outreach/2002 >mtg (RIPE 42) vs post-outreach/2007 mtg (RIPE 55). > >I was surprised to find fewer government folk at 2007 mtg, even though >the number of attendees (n) was larger. > >In any case, no statistical analysis done, just raw counts n percentages. > >RIPE 42 RIPE 55 >CS GOV biz n CS GOV biz n >142 15 133 290 162 7 162 331 >0.48966 0.052 0.459 % 0.48943 0.02115 0.489426 % > >I had hoped this might be helpful, but perhaps it requires analysis of >all meetings, (including Regional) and > >Feedback welcome. First of all, when I look at the spreadsheet the count of 15 "Govt" people is apparently from the list for RIPE55, and the 7 from RIPE 42. So on that basis alone, your conclusion is incorrect. But you've only got a total of 290 people at RIPE55 (which I thought had around 450 and was the "largest ever") and 331 for RIPE 42. I know the columns are broadly correct (on the left are people who were in Amsterdam a couple of weeks ago, on the right back in 2002) just from eyeballing the names and affiliations. There were also at least four people from the EU Commission at RIPE55, who for some reason didn't make your list. So I think we need some better input data. >there are difficulties determinig about whois biz vs. gov vs CS. Yes. There aren't really enough different categories. I see you've put RIR colleagues into "CS", for example. As for "Govt" attendees, these also traditionally include people working in "Civil service" roles within academic networks and cctld operators, as well as other research and CERT-type activities. The target audience for government outreach is quite different - broadly the same constituency as GAC membership (ie the senior officials in the telecoms or foreign affairs ministries, plus telecoms regulators). RIPE55 was also a bit odd in that it was only a month after the most recent Roundtable, where people in our target audience who wanted to learn the latest news and ask us questions had already had their chance (and in private which much better suits their culture). And it was the week immediately before an ICANN meeting in the northern hemisphere, where the GAC members would get their traditional NRO presentation and be able to circulate with *all* the RIRs in the corridors (which we did, and very successfully). And so soon before Rio, when we all get the chance to meet yet again! It was always a bit much to expect attendance at all of those by the "usual suspects", but I was encouraged by the number of new Govt faces at RIPE55, and the amount of very useful business done at all these meetings so far. And now off to Rio... my taxi for the airport arrives in half an hour. -- Roland Perry Public Affairs Officer, RIPE NCC From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Nov 9 15:01:29 2007 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 17:01:29 +0300 Subject: [ec-tf] gov't attendees at meetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Roland, On 11/9/07, Roland Perry wrote: > In message > > First of all, when I look at the spreadsheet the count of 15 "Govt" > people is apparently from the list for RIPE55, and the 7 from RIPE 42. > So on that basis alone, your conclusion is incorrect. It was a hypthesis, not a conclusion ;-) > > But you've only got a total of 290 people at RIPE55 (which I thought had > around 450 and was the "largest ever") and 331 for RIPE 42. > I know the > columns are broadly correct (on the left are people who were in > Amsterdam a couple of weeks ago, on the right back in 2002) just from > eyeballing the names and affiliations. > > There were also at least four people from the EU Commission at RIPE55, > who for some reason didn't make your list. > > So I think we need some better input data. > clearly, I took them from the website ;-) > >there are difficulties determinig about whois biz vs. gov vs CS. > > Yes. There aren't really enough different categories. I see you've put > RIR colleagues into "CS", for example. Yes, which I, and others in the "Internet Technical Community have been arguing is have been arguing is actually the case. Now that we have status as a 4th stakeholder group in the IGF, if I had made 4 columns, there would have been only 2 CS attendee at both meetings I looked at (2 from a human rights group in Nepal). > As for "Govt" attendees, these also traditionally include people working > in "Civil service" roles within academic networks and cctld operators, > as well as other research and CERT-type activities. yes, it was not easy determining if an NREN or ccTLD was a gov or CS, as some (NRENs in particular) were chartered by a gov, then became independent. > > The target audience for government outreach is quite different - broadly > the same constituency as GAC membership (ie the senior officials in the > telecoms or foreign affairs ministries, plus telecoms regulators). > > RIPE55 was also a bit odd in that it was only a month after the most > recent Roundtable, where people in our target audience who wanted to > learn the latest news and ask us questions had already had their chance > (and in private which much better suits their culture). > > And it was the week immediately before an ICANN meeting in the northern > hemisphere, where the GAC members would get their traditional NRO > presentation and be able to circulate with *all* the RIRs in the > corridors (which we did, and very successfully). > > And so soon before Rio, when we all get the chance to meet yet again! > > It was always a bit much to expect attendance at all of those by the > "usual suspects", but I was encouraged by the number of new Govt faces > at RIPE55, and the amount of very useful business done at all these > meetings so far. And now off to Rio... my taxi for the airport arrives > in half an hour. Enjoy, I'll not be there, but I will be on a beach :-) -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim From roland at ripe.net Fri Nov 9 17:26:45 2007 From: roland at ripe.net (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 16:26:45 +0000 Subject: [ec-tf] gov't attendees at meetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 17:01:29 local time, on Fri, 9 Nov 2007, McTim remarked: >Hi Roland, > >On 11/9/07, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message >> >> First of all, when I look at the spreadsheet the count of 15 "Govt" >> people is apparently from the list for RIPE55, and the 7 from RIPE 42. >> So on that basis alone, your conclusion is incorrect. > >It was a hypthesis, not a conclusion ;-) It seemed to me that you were concluding that there were fewer Govt representatives at RIPE55 than RIPE42, but if the figures are transposed... >> So I think we need some better input data. > >clearly, I took them from the website ;-) We must also be looking at different websites, as the RIPE55 one I see from here (at the airport now...) has the four members of the Commission that I mentioned earlier, missing from your spreadsheet. >> >there are difficulties determinig about whois biz vs. gov vs CS. >> >> Yes. There aren't really enough different categories. I see you've put >> RIR colleagues into "CS", for example. > >Yes, which I, and others in the "Internet Technical Community have been >arguing is have been arguing is actually the case. Now that we have >status as a 4th stakeholder group in the IGF, if I had made 4 columns, >there would have been only 2 CS attendee at both meetings I looked at >(2 from a human rights group in Nepal). It's difficult to tell which RIPE attendees are truly CS, and which are, (eg) former Net Entrepreneurs/Engineers who are "resting". What category should they be? I do think that a separate category of "Internet Community" is overdue, for RIPE meetings and IGF stakeholderism alike. >> As for "Govt" attendees, these also traditionally include people working >> in "Civil service" roles within academic networks and cctld operators, >> as well as other research and CERT-type activities. > >yes, it was not easy determining if an NREN or ccTLD was a gov or CS, >as some (NRENs in particular) were chartered by a gov, then became >independent. For the analysis of RIPE meetings, I would recommend that all of those are excluded from a "Government" category, if the objective is to determine who at the meeting is a candidate for promoting "enhanced co-operation" from the government side. What they need to go into is a "[Government funded] Internet Community" category. -- Roland Perry Public Affairs Officer, RIPE NCC