<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"> <style></style> </head> <body bgcolor="white" lang="NL" link="blue" vlink="purple"> <div class="WordSection1"> Hi All,<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> From my side also a few questions;<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <![if !supportLists]>- <![endif]>Should we clarify what is “in alignment with RIPE values”? This is not clear for me!<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>- <![endif]>When is the RIPE NCC review taking place? Interaction issues between RIPE community and RIPE NCC are relevant for the accountability discussion.<o:p></o:p> <![if !supportLists]>- <![endif]>Should members/participants/observers of the Task Force make clear what is their interest in the Task Force?<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Best regards,<o:p></o:p> Wim<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <div> <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm"> Van: accountability-tf [mailto:accountability-tf-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Antony Gollan Verzonden: maandag 30 januari 2017 16:48 Aan: accountability-tf@ripe.net Onderwerp: [Accountability-tf] Updated Draft Scope<o:p></o:p> </div> </div> <o:p> </o:p> 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 ###<o:p></o:p> Updated Scope: <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:l1 level1 lfo1"> Review existing RIPE community structures, documentation and processes to ensure they are accountable and 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:l1 level1 lfo1"> 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:l1 level1 lfo1"> 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:l1 level1 lfo1"> 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:l1 level1 lfo1"> Identify areas where communications efforts might be required and develop communications materials<o:p></o:p></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: <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 lfo2"> 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 lfo2"> 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 lfo2"> 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 lfo2"> 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 lfo2"> Identify areas where communications efforts might be required and develop communications materials<o:p></o:p></li></ul> <o:p> </o:p> 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." <o:p></o:p> Steve: “[…] the process began with identifying what structures they intended to look at. He said it was the accountability of each RIPE community structure.” Hans Petter: “…a useful scope restriction was to focus on RIPE. […] 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." Alexander: “Define the RIPE community before addressing accountablity questions.” 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. " 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. "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> </div> Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is gezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. De Staat aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten. This message may contain information that is not intended for you. If you are not the addressee or if this message was sent to you by mistake, you are requested to inform the sender and delete the message. The State accepts no liability for damage of any kind resulting from the risks inherent in the electronic transmission of messages.</body> </html>