<html> <head> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Hi all, One of the action items from our last call was for the RIPE NCC to update the draft scope. Please find an updated version with a couple of small changes, based on your comments. I have also included the comments I was working from below for reference. A couple of questions: - Several people mentioned defining relevant stakeholders. Is this something to include in the scope, or perhaps in a new section underneath this? - William mentioned the development of a scorecard or other reporting tool - should this be mentioned in the scope or at a later stage in the deliverables? - Nurani mentioned including a note that a full accountability review should include a review of the RIPE NCC and its board, conducted by the membership/secretariat. Is the scope the right place to mention this? Please let me know your thoughts and any changes or revisions you would like made. Cheers Antony ### Updated Scope: The RIPE Accountability Task Force agreed to: <ul> <li>Review existing RIPE community structures, documentation and processes to ensure they are accountable and in alignment with RIPE values</li> <li>Document existing RIPE community structures or processes where needed</li> <li>Identify potential gaps where RIPE accountability could be improved or strengthened </li> <li>Develop recommendations for the RIPE community</li> <li>Identify areas where communications efforts might be required and develop communications materials</li> </ul> The scope of the task force is limited to an examination of the RIPE community and does not include the RIPE NCC. Original Scope: The RIPE Accountability Task Force agreed to: <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <ul> <li>Undertake a review of existing RIPE community structures, documentation and processes to ensure they provide adequate accountability that is in alignment with RIPE values</li> <li>Identify potential gaps where RIPE accountability could be improved or strengthened</li> <li>Document existing RIPE community structures or processes where needed</li> <li>Develop recommendations for the RIPE community</li> <li>Identify areas where communications efforts might be required and develop communications materials</li> </ul> Relevant comments from last TF call (some of these are paraphrased). "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." <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> Steve: “[…] the process began with identifying what structures they intended to look at. He said it was the accountability of each RIPE community structure.”<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>Hans Petter: “…a useful scope restriction was to focus on RIPE. […]<o:p></o:p> 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<o:p></o:p>." <o:p> </o:p> Alexander: “Define the RIPE community before addressing accountablity questions.”<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Nurani: "...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. [...] 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 [...] 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. <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> " <o:p> </o:p> Peter: 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> "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."  </body> </html>