January 2018 - accountability-tf

Accountability TF Call Monday 3-Apr @ 14:00 GMT+2
by William Sylvester 30 Apr '18

30 Apr '18

TF Members, Monday (3-Mar) will be our next call at 14:00, Europe Summer Time (Amsterdam, GMT+02:00). The call and webex details have been sent in a separate email. Here is the current proposed agenda: 1. Welcome, finalise agenda, adopt minutes 2. Review of accountability mapping document 3. Draft scope - feedback from mailing list 4. Review of timeline 5. RIPE 74 preparation (presentation and tf meeting) 6. Review of action items 7. Any Other Business (AOB) Please notify the chairs with any agenda changes or requests. We look forward to speaking with everyone next Monday. Filiz / William Task Force Chairs

1 1

Proposed Accountability TF Call Monday 4-Dec @ 14:00 UTC+1
by William Sylvester 06 Feb '18

06 Feb '18

TF Members, Today, Monday (4-Dec) is our next call at 14:00, Europe Time (Amsterdam, GMT+01:00). The call and Webex details have been sent in a separate email. We are going to change the format of this meeting, the intent will be to work through our list of open items and identify if we have an answer, need to defer to the community, or require additional information (if so what information). We will finish with a short discussion about what information needs to be sent to the community in response of the discussions at the RIPE meeting. Our goal will be to work on the details necessary for the report to the community. The secretariat will capture the discussion to share with the task force and revise existing documentation. Here is the current proposed agenda: 1. Welcome, finalise agenda, adopt minutes 2. Review of open action items 3. Review open questions to the task force. 4. Discuss follow up from RIPE meeting to the community 5. Any Other Business (AOB) Please notify me with any agenda change requests. I look forward to speaking with everyone later today. William Task Force Chair

3 3

Acountability TF Call Monday 2-Oct @ 14:00 UTC+2
by William Sylvester 05 Feb '18

05 Feb '18

TF Members, Monday (2-Oct) will be our next call at 14:00, Europe Summer Time (Amsterdam, GMT+02:00). The call and Webex details have been sent in a separate email. Here is the current proposed agenda: 1. Welcome, finalise agenda, adopt minutes 2. Review of open action items 3. Review from face-to-face meeting and preparations for Dubai (pre-meeting email & presentation) 4. Discuss input requested from community and how to receive feedback 5. Any Other Business (AOB) Please notify me with any agenda change requests. I look forward to speaking with everyone next Monday. William Task Force Chair

3 5

Fwd: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean
by Malcolm Hutty 15 Jan '18

15 Jan '18

I thought I'd give anyone here who doesn't follow Address Policy Working Group a heads-up on this thread. (see below) And to ask, what's next? Or perhaps just, *bump*. Did anybody ready my paper on rought consensus? Any feedback? -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] what does consensus mean Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 12:59:32 +0100 From: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> To: Joao Damas <joao(a)bondis.org> CC: Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net, Jordi Palet Martínez <jordi.palet(a)consulintel.es> Hi, On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 12:34:34PM +0100, Joao Damas wrote: > Well, that feels like just a way of cutting a discussion short. > One might want to read on the Dutch polder-model as an example of > how to cooperate with recognised differences. APWG works on "rough consensus" and "all objections have been *addressed*" - which does not require "the person raising the objection is convinced and withdraws his or her objection". We try to convince :-) - but since this does not always work, it's called "rough" consensus. Besides this, there is different types of objections - "I fully object to changing anything in this general direction, ever!" - "I think this is good, but I disagree with the wording, because..." - "I think this is good, and I see the need for a change, but the proposed policy change is not the right way to do it / is too limited, we should aim for a larger and more encompassing change" Type 1 objections can not be "postponed" - if you go somewhere against strong objection to the general direction, you need convincing, counter arguments, and occasionally you end up at "withdraw due to no consensus" (and sometimes the consensus is rougher than usual). Type 2 objections are usually dealt with by going through a few review cycles with new text, incorporating such input into new versions of the document. This is what we've had here: there was feedback to earlier policy text, and Max did quite a few rounds based on that feedback, together with RS, to come up with text that is clear to RS and to the WG. Type 3 objections can be handled by taking notice of them, and starting a new policy proposal with the larger change after this one is done. Jordi's is - as I explained in my summary mail without detailling these categories - "type 3". The WG has discussed his alternative idea, and there was not enough backing to change 2016-04 into something more general - instead there was support to finish 2016-04 *now*, instead of leaving those impacted by the current policy shortcomings waiting further, until we have consensus on how a larger policy change would look like. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

2 1