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

These minutes are ok for as long as I was present at the meeting  
(12:35 or so).

    Patrik

On 9 maj 2008, at 11.08, Malcolm Hutty wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>