[ec-tf] EC-TF meeting minutes, DRAFT

Are these internal or public minutes?
I presume they are public, if so, maybe they should be summarised a  
little more?

Nurani


On 5 nov 2007, at 14.30, Malcolm Hutty wrote:

> Here are the draft minutes of the meeting at RIPE55.
>
> Would anyone who would like to propose any alterations or additions
> please let me know as soon as possible?
>
> My thanks to Chris Buckridge of the NCC for scribing.
>
> Regards,
>
> Malcolm Hutty
> Chair, Enhanced Co-operation Taskforce.
>
>
>
> RIPE Task Force on Enhanced Cooperation
> Meeting minutes, RIPE 55, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
>
> Meeting commenced 14:33
>
> Malcolm outlined the agenda and recapped the task force charter. He
> noted that the task force is not a replacement or way around the  
> PDP, it
> will not in any way supplant the NCC or the Board, but that it will
> produce a report on the RIPE community's sense of what should be done
> regarding Enhanced Cooperation.
>
> Malcolm noted that it would be useful to have an attendance sheet that
> would allow attendees to be contacted, but that people should not feel
> they have to sign.
>
> Géza Turchanyi noted that it is important for the task force to  
> produce
> something concrete. Malcolm noted that the RIPE NCC is also working in
> this area already, and that the task force will be offering advice and
> guidance on Enhanced Cooperation activities, rather than actually
> conducting them.
>
> Patrik Fältström asked for clarification on the aim of the taskforce,
> and suggested that perhaps a working group would be a more logical  
> forum.
>
> Jim Reid suggested that the task force could have a relatively brief
> existence, and could perhaps issue a statement for the IGF meeting in
> Rio in two weeks time. This statement could be along the lines of "the
> RIPE community is addressing the issue of Enhanced Cooperation, and  
> this
> task force is an example of that".
>
> It was suggested and seconded that discussing the charter and  
> immediate
> timelines ahead of membership issues would be useful.
>
> Malcolm cautioned that the Rio meeting is very close, and that  
> planning
> to issue any substantial statement would be unwise. He also noted that
> this would increase the expectations on the task force at later IGF
> meetings. Jim confirmed that he had only intended a statement on the
> creation of the task force, and Malcolm suggested that the NRO could
> deliver any statement, as well as pointing to the instigation of the
> task force as evidence of ongoing work.
>
> Mirjam Kuehne suggested that the Internet community's administrative
> structures are already confusing for external parties, and adding a
> further structure might exacerbate this. She suggested that a working
> group or plenary statement might be more useful. Malcolm noted that
> according to his discussions with RIPE NCC staff, establishing a task
> force was the appropriate way to start work on this subject, and that
> this task force might then lead to the creation of a working group.
>
> Patrik noted that the charter is not clear, but that he would  
> support a
> charter that specified that the task force would look at whether
> existing RIPE NCC processes were sufficient and evaluate the potential
> of a working group.
>
> Ischa noted that the RIRs would be at the IGF as the NRO, no under the
> RIPE banner.
>
> Malcolm noted that the task force was created at RIPE 54, so it is
> really a matter now of deciding what will be done by the task force  
> and how.
>
> Ischa asked whether the motivation for forming the task force  
> formation
> was as a response to a perceived a gap in the work currently being  
> done.
> Malcolm responded that this was not the case, but that it was  
> important
> to be seen to be doing work in this area. The task force is a visible
> explanation of how the RIR community works, and could illustrate the
> bottom-up process in action.
>
> Mirjam was noted that there are already open structures, and maybe
> people need to be directed to these, for example, mailing lists, RIR
> meetings etc.
>
> Patrik noted that the there was some confusion about whether the task
> force would be involved in policy.
>
> Nurani noted that this is not about creating a second body, but  
> showing
> people how they can participate in the existing spaces. Jim Reid noted
> that we also need to find new ways to talk to the external parties in
> the language they understand about issues that are important to them.
> Patrick disagreed, and believes the existing cooperation between the
> RIPE NCC and the regulatory bodies is very successful, as demonstrated
> by the recent Roundtable meeting. Malcolm noted that this task force
> could be a forum for evaluating the success of activities such as the
> Roundtable meetings; Patrik agreed with this and supported the  
> proposed
> role of the task force.
>
> Malcolm raised the issue of membership and whether to have an open or
> closed membership. Open membership would imply involve submitting
> iterative drafts to an open mailing list, like an IETF task force; a
> closed group would rely on a limited number of people working on the
> outcome, and would then present to the Plenary. Patrik's preference is
> that the task force be tasked with evaluating the existing and  
> proposed
> structures for EC, and that it should be done in a closed group,  
> because
> the scope for confusion on this subject is very easy. Jim agreed, and
> noted that a closed list might allow more honest discussion. Keith
> Mitchell noted that it was best to have things as open as possible
> unless there is a reason otherwise; he suggested a compromise of  
> having
> nominated task force members who are responsible for specific
> deliverables, but public deliberations. This was supported by several
> others in the room.
>
> There is a general expectation that the mailing list will be publicly
> readable; there were no objections to this. Paul Rendek noted that  
> it is
> possible to set up a list so that people can watch the  
> deliberations of
> a closed task force. He noted though, that this work will need to be
> down quite quickly, and a limited number of people will facilitate  
> this.
> He also agreed with Patrik that adding this structure could be  
> confusing
> for people external to the RIPE community, particularly hen  
> considering
> something like a statement at the IGF.
>
> Malcolm noted that having a fix duration will mean that after the  
> final
> report is delivered, the task force will cease to exist. Jim agreed  
> that
> this task force will not "take on a life of its own".
>
> Patrik noted that if the task force still exists at the next RIPE
> Meeting he would be disappointed, and that the goals of the task force
> should be able to be met in the very short term. He suggested that the
> task force's work might start with a survey on what is already being
> done within the RIPE community regarding Enhanced Cooperation. Malcolm
> noted that he had planned for the RIPE Meeting Plenary to give its  
> input
> to the document, which would mean the task force was not wrapped up by
> the next meeting. Patrik feels that this is too slow, though he  
> accepted
> the suggestion that a first draft of the report be prepared well  
> before
> the next RIPE meeting; the formal death and implementation of the task
> force could extend beyond that. Ischa noted that the task force could
> define its own timeline.
>
> Jim suggested that the strategy be to compile a report ASAP,  
> ideally in
> time for the ICANN meeting in New Delhi. Malcolm noted that while the
> work needs to be done in a timely fashion, there should also be a
> recognition that the work must be done properly.
>
> Malcolm emphasized the need for diversity in the make-up of the task
> force, especially in terms of experience, sectors, geography etc. Géza
> suggested that Malcolm himself suggest some people to be on the task
> force. Fearghas McKay noted that the demands of time may also  
> affect the
> diversity, particularly in regard to the smaller groups working on  
> very
> short-term sub-projects. Mirjam noted that it would be best to give  
> some
> idea to the amount of time commitment required, and that perhaps a
> co-Chair would be useful.
>
> Malcolm suggested a separate list on which members of the public could
> talk in parallel about the same issues. Leo Vegoda noted that a  
> parallel
> group of people watching the task force work in progress might not be
> very useful. There was an observation that if discussion on a parallel
> mailing list differed significantly from the task force outcome it  
> would
> appear that the community had not been listened to. There was a  
> further
> comment that any mechanisms or strategies decided on must meet the  
> needs
> of the bodies with whom the RIPE is hoping to cooperate.
>
> Malcolm closed the meeting, and summarised that the task force  
> needs to
> be short term, produce a report early, and utilize a limited number of
> people within the task force, though the task force itself may  
> recommend
> a working group be established. There is a preference for a small  
> group
> acting urgently, with less focus on diversity. He noted that people
> signing up to the task force mailing list are being regarded as
> prospective members, and will be contacted at later date.
>