[diversity] Requesting Impact Analysis + Legal Review from the RIPE NCC on CoC 2.0

Amanda,

Thanks. Hmmm, this exposes a definite issue, because we never invoked the PDP, nor did anyone tell us we needed to. Not the NCC nor the RIPE Chair, so I honestly don't see how it's on us to suddenly divine a document needs to be formally sent to someone, but that is a discussion for another time, I think.

It's not that I object to it being reviewed, better before than after, it's just some of the stuff around the process.

I mean, I really want to make sure that there are no things that are problematic in v2 that are solved in v3 but the IA doesn't address them or raises them as an issue. We could, of course, send v3 out to the list and then ask for the IA after the meeting, because that's the version we want to go ahead with (pending the TF being good with that, of course). I just don't want to have to send it for another IA if we've moved on.

What do other people think?

Please note, I'm happy to request this from NCC Legal on behalf of the TF, but explicitly *not* as Chair of the TF, but that's only if there isn't someone better. But I really don't want that particular community process to confound or delay (more) the work we're doing. I think we also need clear expectations from HPH on this.

Brian

Brian Nisbet 
Service Operations Manager
HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
+35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie
Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amanda Gowland <agowland at ripe.net>
> Sent: Thursday 3 October 2019 20:54
> To: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie>; diversity at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [diversity] Requesting Impact Analysis + Legal Review from the
> RIPE NCC on CoC 2.0
> 
> Hi Brian,
> 
> I don't think it's legal's responsibility to come to us for the document though,
> it's on the TF to initiate that (I think?)
> 
> Admittedly, I didn't really understand that there was a formal procedure in
> place to have that happen. I asked legal to review it once we had enough
> time to get some substantial feedback because that seemed to make sense
> but I'm informed that there also needs to be an impact analysis...so yeah, it
> looks like that will take some time unfortunately.
> 
> It's important we get it right though and I certainly wouldn't want anyone to
> halt progress on such an important document on a technicality.
> 
> Legal has been really quick with their feedback and incredibly helpful in
> making the 3.0 version more solid.
> 
> They said, I'm told that because the 2.0 draft was the one sent to the ripe-list
> in May, that's the one we should be asking to review...not the updated 3.0
> version where we've incorporated the feedback and comments (which was
> done openly on Google Docs and on this list, it should be noted).
> 
> TBH, I'm not sure I see the logic here
> 
> As far as transparency goes, I think we've done that.
> 
> As far as I can see, we're being asked to follow the PDP on this? Legal
> explained that since we are asking the RIPE NCC to potentially take action in
> this CoC (for example, potentially removing someone from the meeting after
> a severe violation), there needs to be an impact analysis.
> 
> Hope this clarifies.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Amanda
> 
> 
> 
> On 03/10/2019 18:30, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mirjam Kuehne <mir at ripe.net>
> >> Sent: Thursday 3 October 2019 16:57
> >> To: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie>; Amanda Gowland
> >> <agowland at ripe.net>; diversity at ripe.net
> >> Subject: Re: [diversity] Requesting Impact Analysis + Legal Review
> >> from the RIPE NCC on CoC 2.0
> >>
> >> Hi Brian,
> >>
> >> On 03/10/2019 17:37, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> >>> Amanda,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for this.
> >>>
> >>> I thought we did have a chair, and I thought that was Mirjam, but I
> >> acknowledge it's been a while since this was talked about.
> >>
> >> Yes, I remember I chaired a meeting where it was decided not to have
> >> a chair
> >> :-) But for practical reasons and as a contact person for the RIPE
> >> Chair it might be good to choose a task force chair and best someone
> >> from the community and not the RIPE NCC.
> > I suspect it would. Of course the big question is "who"? For a variety of
> reasons I don't find myself in a position to chair the TF, nor do I feel I would
> be the right person to do so.
> >
> >>> However we had also tried to have as little... authority as
> >>> possible, of
> >> course.
> >>> That said, should we be sending the May document or the more recent
> >> one to the NCC? And, unfortunately, of course, this means that we
> >> won't have anything to formally propose at RIPE 79, I suppose?
> >>
> >> There is currently a speaking slot for the (chair of the) diversity
> >> task force during the community plenary on Thursday afternoon that
> >> could be used to present the main principles and changes in the
> >> document to the community (Hans Petter is going to contact the task
> force about this).
> >> But yes, it is probably not ready to come to a final decision at RIPE 79.
> > Right, that would make sense. I am happy to work on such a presentation
> with people, but again we need different (and more diverse) faces on stage.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> >>> I will admit that this is quite late in the day for the NCC legal
> >>> team to be
> >> asking for this. They had sight of the document in May and that would
> >> have been the time to start talking about an IA, not less than two
> >> weeks before a meeting. Do we know why this suddenly cropped up?
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Brian
> >>>
> >>> Brian Nisbet
> >>> Service Operations Manager
> >>> HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network 1st
> >>> Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
> >>> +35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie
> >>> Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: diversity <diversity-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of Amanda
> >>>> Gowland
> >>>> Sent: Thursday 3 October 2019 13:16
> >>>> To: diversity at ripe.net
> >>>> Subject: [diversity] Requesting Impact Analysis + Legal Review from
> >>>> the RIPE NCC on CoC 2.0
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi all,
> >>>>
> >>>> So, an update...
> >>>>
> >>>> After speaking with RIPE NCC's legal team on next steps for the
> >>>> CoC, they advise that the Chair of this TF (which we don't have
> >>>> afaik) request an impact analysis and legal review of the RIPE CoC
> >>>> 2.0, which Brian shared on the ripe- list last May for comment:
> >>>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-
> meetin
> >>>> g-
> >>>> code-of-conduct-2-0-draft
> >>>>
> >>>> Could someone (Brian, Shane or Denesh) email legal at ripe.net with
> >>>> the link above to request this and cc the TF?
> >>>>
> >>>> Now, prior to this info, I had been working (a lot) on adapting the
> >>>> 2.0 text to address the comments received here. I also felt that
> >>>> there was a lot of overlap between the CoC text and the CoC Team
> >>>> doc, so I merged them for
> >>>> clarity:
> >>>>
> >>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yqOUPR02SONuSt812cuOBkk_xnhjY
> >>>> zjdk9qmsJkcDdQ/edit
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a version I'd like you to comment on, hopefully we can move
> >>>> forward...I hope we've addressed the concerns about appeals.
> >>>>
> >>>> Happy for your feedback.
> >>>>
> >>>> Kind regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Amanda
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> diversity mailing list
> >>>> diversity at ripe.net
> >>>> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> diversity mailing list
> >>> diversity at ripe.net
> >>> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> >>>