Dear AP WG, according to our WG Chair Selection process, one of the WG chairs has to step down every two years, and a new WG chair is selected by the WG. This time, it is my time to step down, and I will not(!) run again - I've been one of your chairmen for a long time, and I think it's time for a change. Do not despair :-) - as you are aware, we brought in two "trainee chairs" at the last meeting, Leo Vegoda and James Kennedy. Both have used the time to look "behind the curtains" and see what they will be getting themselves into, and last I heard, were willing to take the job. That said: it is your decision, as WG, not our decision as WG chair team. So other interested volunteers are free to make their interest known, and then the WG will decide. Please make your interest known to the remaining chair (Erik Bais) erik@bais.name and please include a short bio and your reason for applying. Erik will collect applications and publish them collectively on March 31st. Gert Doering -- creaky chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Dear AP WG, Maybe not as timely as initially projected, but with no further delay ... We have 2 prospects for the Co-Chair position for the AP-WG, as Gert is leaving us as co-chair after 18 years of being one of the Chairs of the AP-WG ( since RIPE 44 in Amsterdam, 2003 ). Or the LIR WG as it was called back in those days.. ( https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-44/meeting-repo... ) Both Leo Vegoda and James Kennedy re-stated that they want to serve the WG as a co-Chair. Their motivation you can read below: James Kennedy: Clogg size M, preferably wooden. Relevant background - BSc degree in IT and Telecommunications from University of Limerick, 2005 - Various roles in technology in Luxembourg and Amsterdam before working for the Registration Services department of the RIPE NCC for 3.5 years - Now the IP Address Manager for tier 1 Internet access provider for over 8 years - Regular RIPE Meeting attendee and active RIPE community member - Author of address policy 2015-02: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 - Member of the RIPE Database Requirements Task Force: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/rdb-requirements-tf Likes - Well maintained, accurate, reliable data - Smart process simplification - Bottom-up, consensus-driven, open policy development Goals as AP-WG co-chair - Facilitate and encourage open, constructive discourse on address policy related topics - Provide neutral guidance to community members interested in proposing address policy - Support productive communication between the RIPE NCC and the RIPE community regarding address policy issues in a post-IPv4 runout world Leo Vegoda: I had operational roles at two ISPs before joining the RIPE NCC's registration services team in 2000. I led the team for several years before joining ICANN to manage Internet Number Resources in its IANA team at the end of 2006. I then moved into ICANN's Office of the COO to focus on continuous improvement and organisational planning. I started a small business in 2020, and focus on helping organisations operating in the Internet infrastructure and community space. Clients include Euro-IX, PeeringDB, and UKNOF. I am also currently chairing RIPE's Code of Conduct TF. The first meeting I attended was RIPE 35, in 2000. I have previously submitted one policy proposal (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2006-07) and have implemented several more, both at the RIPE NCC and ICANN. And Leo's response in reply to the info above, as to what his shoe size is ...
My shoes say 255, but that is a Chinese scale. Also, I think my feet have spread after a year of almost not wearing shoes.
Me and Gert had the pleasure on working with Leo and James in the last 6 months on topics in relation on the AP-WG related stuff. And I would suggest to the working group to extend, if the WG agrees, to accept both applicants, so that we are going to a 3 chair WG. I think they have a solid understanding of the policy making and background which is relevant for the AP-WG and a good addition to the position. During RIPE82 we will have the time in the agenda for the rotation process. If you like to support or have specific questions / concerns, please let us know via the mailing list or to myself directly. We will send out the AP-WG RIPE82 agenda shortly. Regards, Erik Bais On behalf of the AP-WG chair team.
Hi Erik and Gert, On Fri, 2021-04-09 at 12:20 +0000, Erik Bais wrote:
Me and Gert had the pleasure on working with Leo and James in the last 6 months on topics in relation on the AP-WG related stuff. And I would suggest to the working group to extend, if the WG agrees, to accept both applicants, so that we are going to a 3 chair WG.
I have no problem with that. It'll complicate the rotation process in the future, but that'll be a luxury problem 🙂
I think they have a solid understanding of the policy making and background which is relevant for the AP-WG and a good addition to the position.
During RIPE82 we will have the time in the agenda for the rotation process.
Thanks for all the hard work! Sander
On 9 Apr 2021, at 14:20, Erik Bais wrote:
… And I would suggest to the working group to extend, if the WG agrees, to accept both applicants, so that we are going to a 3 chair WG. …
By all means as long as the three of you are all comfy with this and you can work out the rotation in the future. Daniel Full disclosure: I am both a RIPE participant from RIPE 0 and on the RIPE NCC staff.
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 12:20:52PM +0000, Erik Bais wrote: Dear Erik, All,
And I would suggest to the working group to extend, if the WG agrees, to accept both applicants, so that we are going to a 3 chair WG.
That is wonderful idea. Full support from my side. -- Piotr Strzyżewski
On 9 Apr 2021, at 15:03, Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
And I would suggest to the working group to extend, if the WG agrees, to accept both applicants, so that we are going to a 3 chair WG.
That is wonderful idea. Full support from my side.
Sorry Piotr, strong opposition from my side. What’s the justification for an extra co-chair? The workload in this WG is diminishing and may well vanish soon. Address policy is effectively finished. There’s no more IPv4 to distribute and current policy seems good enough to handle the dregs of v4. LIRs generally get a single IPv6 allocation that’ll meet their needs for decades - not that we’ll run out of IPv6 in the forseeable future. I think this WG doesn’t really need two co-chairs, far less three. Though I suppose every WG should have two co-chairs to cover for absence and/or simplify succession planning. Please remember that 10+ years ago -- when tinkering with IPv4 allocation policy was at its peak -- Gert ran the WG all by himself. If one person was able to manage that when the WG had lots to do, why should today’s WG business need three people? IMO, it’s a mistake to add extra WG co-chairs just for the sake of it. Or to avoid choosing between two or more excellent and equally matched candidates. Do we really want to see RIPE become a forum where everybody is a co-chair of something or other?
Hi Jim, On Fri, Apr 09, 2021 at 03:55:32PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
What???s the justification for an extra co-chair? The workload in this WG is diminishing and may well vanish soon. Address policy is effectively finished. There???s no more IPv4 to distribute and current policy seems good enough to handle the dregs of v4. LIRs generally get a single IPv6 allocation that???ll meet their needs for decades - not that we???ll run out of IPv6 in the forseeable future.
What I have heard was that people want to have a go at rewriting all the (number) policy documents into something more easy to understand and more consistent. This is quite a bit of work for the WG and the chair team. After that, we might see the WG go dormant, indeed... Gert Doering -- no hats today -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Jim, On Fri, 2021-04-09 at 15:55 +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
Please remember that 10+ years ago -- when tinkering with IPv4 allocation policy was at its peak -- Gert ran the WG all by himself.
That is actually not true. I volunteered to become co-chair immediately after the APWG session where Hans Petter resigned, and was accepted as co-chair by the working group at the next RIPE meeting. Cheers, Sander
On 9 Apr 2021, at 17:06, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
That is actually not true. I volunteered to become co-chair immediately after the APWG session where Hans Petter resigned, and was accepted as co-chair by the working group at the next RIPE meeting.
I stand corrected Sander. No matter. My point remains. Why does the WG need a third co-chair?
Hi team Not sure how I was cc’d in these emails but please remove me. Can’t seem to find any unsubscribe options here or on ripe. On Apr 9, 2021, 12:12 PM -0400, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>, wrote:
On 9 Apr 2021, at 17:06, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
That is actually not true. I volunteered to become co-chair immediately after the APWG session where Hans Petter resigned, and was accepted as co-chair by the working group at the next RIPE meeting.
I stand corrected Sander.
No matter. My point remains. Why does the WG need a third co-chair?
Hi Jim, Honestly I had a similar reaction when I first heard the suggestion - considering how quiet the AP-WG has been of late, do we really have the need for three chairs now? As Gert wrote earlier, we have heard that some people want a systematic review of the AP documents performed to make them easier to follow and comprehend, and to improve consistency within and between the docs. Kurt highlighted some good examples on Tuesday. Such an activity would considerably increase the workload for the WG and the chair team. This, along with Gert leaving a sizable footprint (size 47) of knowledge and experience to fill, leaves me to believe that having three chairs for the upcoming period offers more benefit than harm. Regards, James -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Jim Reid Sent: Friday 9 April 2021 18:12 To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Cc: Piotr Strzyzewski <Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl>; RIPE address policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] a third WG co-chair
On 9 Apr 2021, at 17:06, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
That is actually not true. I volunteered to become co-chair immediately after the APWG session where Hans Petter resigned, and was accepted as co-chair by the working group at the next RIPE meeting.
I stand corrected Sander. No matter. My point remains. Why does the WG need a third co-chair?
Hi, I echo James on Gert's accumulated experience. Separately, I think it's worth noting that a team of three provides more resilience. In the event that one person is unavailable or has to recuse themselves from a discussion, there is always another person to work through issues with. Kind regards, Leo On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 1:15 PM Kennedy, James via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi Jim,
Honestly I had a similar reaction when I first heard the suggestion - considering how quiet the AP-WG has been of late, do we really have the need for three chairs now?
As Gert wrote earlier, we have heard that some people want a systematic review of the AP documents performed to make them easier to follow and comprehend, and to improve consistency within and between the docs. Kurt highlighted some good examples on Tuesday. Such an activity would considerably increase the workload for the WG and the chair team.
This, along with Gert leaving a sizable footprint (size 47) of knowledge and experience to fill, leaves me to believe that having three chairs for the upcoming period offers more benefit than harm.
Regards, James
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Jim Reid Sent: Friday 9 April 2021 18:12 To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Cc: Piotr Strzyzewski <Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl>; RIPE address policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] a third WG co-chair
On 9 Apr 2021, at 17:06, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
That is actually not true. I volunteered to become co-chair immediately after the APWG session where Hans Petter resigned, and was accepted as co-chair by the working group at the next RIPE meeting.
I stand corrected Sander.
No matter. My point remains. Why does the WG need a third co-chair?
I think having a third chair is an excellent opportunity for someone with less experience to run with the 2 other chairs to gain experience and learn from them. I believe Job expressed a similar idea a few meetings ago for the routing WG. On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 6:56 PM Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Hi,
I echo James on Gert's accumulated experience. Separately, I think it's worth noting that a team of three provides more resilience. In the event that one person is unavailable or has to recuse themselves from a discussion, there is always another person to work through issues with.
Kind regards,
Leo
On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 1:15 PM Kennedy, James via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Hi Jim,
Honestly I had a similar reaction when I first heard the suggestion -
considering how quiet the AP-WG has been of late, do we really have the need for three chairs now?
As Gert wrote earlier, we have heard that some people want a systematic
review of the AP documents performed to make them easier to follow and comprehend, and to improve consistency within and between the docs. Kurt highlighted some good examples on Tuesday. Such an activity would considerably increase the workload for the WG and the chair team.
This, along with Gert leaving a sizable footprint (size 47) of knowledge
and experience to fill, leaves me to believe that having three chairs for the upcoming period offers more benefit than harm.
Regards, James
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf
Of Jim Reid
Sent: Friday 9 April 2021 18:12 To: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Cc: Piotr Strzyzewski <Piotr.Strzyzewski@polsl.pl>; RIPE address policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] a third WG co-chair
On 9 Apr 2021, at 17:06, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
That is actually not true. I volunteered to become co-chair immediately after the APWG session where Hans Petter resigned, and was accepted as co-chair by the working group at the next RIPE meeting.
I stand corrected Sander.
No matter. My point remains. Why does the WG need a third co-chair?
participants (10)
-
Daniel Karrenberg -
Erik Bais -
Gert Doering -
Jim Reid -
Kennedy, James -
Leo Vegoda -
Melchior Aelmans -
Piotr Strzyzewski -
Sales -
Sander Steffann