<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <big>Dear all, Here are the notes from yesterday's call. Let me know any corrections or anything I've missed. I have also attached some updated web copy which we will publish on Monday unless we hear anything from the group. Cheers Antony </big> <meta name="Title" content=""> RIPE Accountability Task Force Meeting Notes<o:p></o:p> <big>17 January 2017<o:p></o:p></big> <big> </big> <big><o:p> </o:p></big> Attendees: <o:p></o:p> Athina Fragkouli, Antony Gollan, Hans Petter Holen, Malcolm Hutty, Alexander Isavnin, Peter Koch, Steve Nash, Nurani Nimpuno, Wim Rullens, William Sylvester, Filiz Yilmaz. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 1) Finalise agenda – adopt minutes<o:p></o:p> 2) Selection of Chair<o:p></o:p> 3) Finalise scope<o:p></o:p> 4) Finalise deliverables<o:p></o:p> 5) Finalise information for website<o:p></o:p> -Please review the attached document before the call<o:p></o:p> 6) Openness of calls to third parties<o:p></o:p> 7) Finding a regular time for TF calls<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 1) Finalise agenda – adopt minutes<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> There were no changes to the agenda. The minutes from the last call were adopted. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 2) Selection of Chair<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Hans Petter said that as a matter of principle the RIPE Chair shouldn’t act as Chair of any Task Forces directly and someone from the community should take this position. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Alexander suggested that Athina could be Chair. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Filiz suggested they have someone form the community with Athina as co-Chair. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Nurani said she had complete trust in Athina’s abilities, but it might not be appropriate for a RIPE NCC staff member to chair the TF, though the RIPE NCC had already said they were willing to provide support to the Chair. It was good to have Hans Petter involved, but she agreed that he also shouldn’t be Chair. On the last call they had suggested Filiz be Chair and she was happy with that. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> William said he would be happy to be Chair. There seemed to have been a lack of participation over the past weeks, so the question was who was willing to have regular interactions. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Athina agreed with Filiz and Nurani that while this would be supported 100% by the RIPE NCC, the TF had to be a community-driven effort. She noted that William had stepped up and Nurani had nominated Filiz. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Filiz said she would be willing to be co-Chair with William, but she didn’t have time to be the sole Chair. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Peter and Nurani seconded William and Filiz as Chairs of the RIPE Accountability Task Force. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Filiz said she wanted to confirm Hans Petter as a member of the TF, as it was appropriate for him to be involved to help ensure they stayed within scope. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Hans Petter agreed and said he would participate as much as he was able. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 3) Finalise Scope<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Filiz noted that William had sent through some thoughts on the mailing list earlier. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> William said they should identify the various groups involved and determine what kind of accountability they had to these groups. Then they could publish some kind of ongoing status or scorecard with how they were doing in terms of accountability. This wasn’t a one-time checkbox but rather an ongoing thing. In areas where accountability was missing, they could give a timeline when they expected a particular issue or area to be addressed. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Nurani said they needed to clarify what they meant by accountability. She mentioned a presentation at an ICANN meeting on accountability that she would share with the group as a starting point. She agreed that accountability was not something you achieved and then forgot about, but they needed to define what the task of the group was. What did they intend to actually look at for the various groups that this community should or should not be accountable to? Maybe they should ensure they had the same definition of accountability and then come up with the scope of the group. She thought they wanted the TF to do an initial assessment and come up with some recommendations that the community could move forward on. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Athina suggested they look at the draft scope that Antony had put together from the previous call that was in the draft website copy. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Antony ran through the draft scope [included here]:<o:p></o:p> “The RIPE Accountability Task Force agreed to: <o:p></o:p> <ul type="disc"> <li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 36.0pt">Undertake a review of existing RIPE community structures, documentation and processes to ensure they provide adequate accountability that is in alignment with RIPE values<o:p></o:p></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 36.0pt">Identify potential gaps where RIPE accountability could be improved or strengthened<o:p></o:p></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 36.0pt">Document existing RIPE community structures or processes where needed<o:p></o:p></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 36.0pt">Develop recommendations for the RIPE community<o:p></o:p></li> <li class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:list 36.0pt">Identify areas where communications efforts might be required and develop communications materials” <o:p></o:p></li> </ul> Steve said he thought the process began with identifying what structures they intended to look at. He said it was the accountability of each RIPE community structure. He had sent an email on 18 December along these lines. There were a number of places were accountability was moderately clear but other places where this wasn’t so clear. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Hans Petter said a useful scope restriction was to focus on RIPE. Plenty of work had already been done on the RIPE NCC. He wasn’t sure what they meant by “community structures”, but he thought they were talking about the RIPE community which consisted of Working Groups, Task Forces, Mailing Lists, etc. He thought this was what they needed to look at, as the lack of a well-defined community membership meant that it was difficult to determine accountability. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Filiz agreed with Hans Petter. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Alexander said he had an addition. First they should define who they were – as even on the TF there was confusion about the RIPE NCC and the RIPE community. He said they shouldn’t only talk about WG Chairs et al, but also about who the community was and how it could be defined. Once they had this they could start talking about accountability. He said RIPE didn’t exist in the legal world and so they needed to define its existence in a satisfactory way. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Nurani said she mostly agreed with Hans Petter and Filiz that the work should focus on the RIPE community and its mechanisms and they needed to be clear about not mixing up membership processes and community powers. So they needed to be crystal clear about these things before they proceeded. Long-term accountability work would not be complete without looking at the whole structure, including the RIPE NCC’s membership and its board. This was probably something that needed to be done in future work. If there were other issues that needed to be explored, this might have to be undertaken by the membership and the secretariat. So maybe they could proceed with a note that a full accountability review would include a review of/by the membership and secretariat.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> William said everything on the list looked good, but they needed to define who the participants and stakeholders were, and what organisations were encompassed by the review. He didn’t think that they needed to define this today – this could come out in later discussions.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Peter said he agreed with most of what had been said. Policy setting was the most important part where accountability came in and there were challenges around this. They had learned in recent years that policy setting by RIPE and policy implementation by the RIPE NCC resulted in some interesting interactions, particularly where fees had been used. He said they should be clear on where they were talking about RIPE and where they were talking about the RIPE NCC. This needed to be especially clear for readers. The RIPE and RIPE NCC interaction came after they had reviewed the structures. He suggested bringing the third bullet-point up [“Document existing RIPE community structures or processes where needed”], which would include things like the process for selecting WG Chairs. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Filiz said they seemed to be leaning towards a scope that the TF would study the existing and future stakeholders within the RIPE community. The other option would be to create another “stakeholders” section below the scope where they could list who they thought this work would be relating to. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Hans Petter said he just wanted to add two bits of formalism. If they looked at existing TFs, they should create a charter — which would be the existing scope shaped into what they would achieve. They also needed a timeline. Once they had established this, they should bring this back to the community to get feedback or consensus. And starting with the community, they could also look later at the borders between the community and the membership organisation. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Filiz agreed that they would need to get community input/support for their charter. They therefore needed to focus on an initial scope among themselves that they could then present to the community at the next RIPE Meeting. She suggested the RIPE NCC come up with a timeline for this. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Hans Petter said they could also do this on the RIPE mailing list. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Filiz said they could do both. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Athina said she understood that having an accurate and complete scope approved by the community was important. In the meantime she asked if they should do some preparatory work, and some of the things they could already work on (such as the action item for the RIPE NCC to map out areas where accountability features were already in place) and have a tentative scope on the website to share with the community, with a note that it was draft and would be finalised in the coming months. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Filiz agreed with this and said this wasn’t just related to the scope – they also needed a timeline for the group’s work. The first deliverable was a scope on the mailing list by the RIPE Meeting, and this also needed to be on the meeting agenda. Working back from this, eight weeks before RIPE 74 a draft scope would need to be agreed on by the TF. Then they could start preparing what they needed to do to socialise this with the RIPE community. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> **Action item: RIPE NCC to capture the wording of the TF’s comments on scope and produce an updated document to send to the mailing list. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> **Action item: RIPE NCC to come up with a draft timeline for the TF.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> William said he was also happy to help with this.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 4) Finalise deliverables<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Filiz suggested that they defer this, as it depended on the scope and timeline. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 5) Finalise information for website<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Nurani said she wanted to be transparent as possible – she suggested they put up meeting minutes and any other documentation the group produced. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Filiz agreed but said they should discuss this further on the mailing list. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> **Action item: Filiz to start a discussion about transparency/web documentation on the mailing list. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Athina said having a web page about the TF was something that they had to do soon, as they were already very late. The reason they hadn’t published yet was because they weren’t sure what to publish. She understood they hadn’t agreed on the final version of the scope but suggested they could publish what they already had as a draft. They already had members, and could add others. They now had Chairs. It was important that they agree on this soon. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> There was strong support for this. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Filiz said they should therefore publish the website content along with the draft scope. She asked that the TF be informed as soon as this was published. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 6) Openness of calls to third parties<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Filiz said this needed some more discussion, as they would be dealing with possible interventions by other third parties or observers. She suggested they discuss this further on the list. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> **Action: Filiz to start a discussion regarding openness of TF calls on the mailing list. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 7) Finding a regular time for TF calls. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Filiz said they needed a poll for this, and asked the RIPE NCC to create one. She suggested they consider as a priority times that would suit the RIPE NCC, but to give the TF options. She suggested they start with one hour meetings. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Nurani said they should agree on frequency. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> William said monthly would be appropriate if they would be participating on the mailing list, but this wouldn’t be enough if they didn’t have this mailing list interaction. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Nurani said monthly was most practical, but that didn’t stop them adding in extra calls if needed. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Filiz said they should agree on monthly calls, and the Chairs could call for extra meetings if the need arose. If there was enough engagement on the list, then she didn’t see any need for additional meetings. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> The group agreed. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> **Action: RIPE NCC to make poll covering Feb, March, April, and one meeting before RIPE 74. The deadline for TF members to enter their preferences should be one week. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Nurani said she wasn’t sure how much of the community was aware of the TF being formed. She suggested they invite members of the community to join. This would also avoid having people jumping in with comments and suggestions late in the process.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Athina said the RIPE NCC had sent an email to the RIPE mailing list and the Cooperation WG a month or so earlier – informing the community and inviting people to join. She asked if there was more they should be doing. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Filiz said once they had published the draft scope and website content they could drop a note to the RIPE mailing list and invite interested parties to send messages to the Accountability TF mailing list. Once they had produced the signed-off scope, they could send another email to RIPE-list. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Nurani said this was about being as inclusive as possible. There might also be community members who didn’t know what the RIPE Accountability TF was. If another mail was sent once the draft scope was published, people might get a better idea of what they were doing. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Peter said getting enough people on the call was already complicated. Having more people onto the TF would result in random walk-ins and walk-outs and he didn’t think this was what they were trying to achieve. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Filiz said it was good to have feedback from the community, but it was important to limit access to the TF at some point – otherwise they risked having people coming into the group at a late point and asking them to change the scope. Latecomers would likely have some catching-up to do, and this might impact the group’s deliverables. Being an active TF member required some definition and she would take this to the ML. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> **Action: Filiz to start a discussion on the mailing list about how open the TF should be. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Action items<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 20171801-1: RIPE NCC to capture the wording of the TF’s comments on scope and produce an updated document to send to the mailing list. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 20171801-2: RIPE NCC to come up with a draft timeline for the TF.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 20171801-3: Filiz to start a discussion about transparency/web documentation on the mailing list. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 20171801-4: Filiz to start a discussion regarding openness of TF calls on the mailing list. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 20171801-5: RIPE NCC to make poll covering Feb, March, April, and one meeting before RIPE 74. The deadline for TF members to enter their preferences should be one week. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> 20171801-6: Filiz to start a discussion on the mailing list about how open the TF should be. 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.<o:p></o:p> 20163011-2: The RIPE NCC to map out areas where accountability features are already.<o:p></o:p> <meta name="Keywords" content=""> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14"> <meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 14"> <link rel="File-List" href="file://localhost/Users/agollan/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0clip_filelist.xml">  <link rel="themeData" href="file://localhost/Users/agollan/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0clip_themedata.xml">  <style>  </style> </body> </html>