Hi,

Am 01.08.2017 um 18:19 schrieb Sascha Luck [ml] <aawg@c4inet.net <mailto:aawg@c4inet.net>>: Surely the membership should at least be asked whether they want an organisation they are *mandatory* members of

nobody is a mandatory member of RIPE. Best regards, Malte -- 
Malte von dem Hagen | Director Networks 
malte@godaddy.com
 <mailto:malte.von.dem.hagen@godaddy.com>Office: Hansestrasse 79, 51149 Cologne
 Host Europe Internet GmbH - http://www.hosteurope.de <http://www.hosteurope.de/> 
Welserstraße 14 - 51149 Köln - Germany
 HRB 78934 Amtsgericht Köln 
Geschäftsführer: Patrick Pulvermüller, Tobias Mohr, Dr. Christian Koch Host Europe Internet GmbH is a company of GoDaddy

Hi, Am 01.08.2017 um 18:44 schrieb Sascha Luck [ml] <aawg@c4inet.net <mailto:aawg@c4inet.net>>:

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 05:29:04PM +0200, Malte von dem Hagen wrote:

...

nobody is a mandatory member of RIPE.

I did contemplate putting text in my email to forestall this idiotic argument because I knew someone would not be above bringing it.

We can of course start calling each other’s statements idiotic, if you want. Not my preferred way of spending time, though.

Everyone in the RIPE NCC service region who needs their own IP space is, mandatorily, a RIPE NCC member.

Nobody mandatorily needs IP space. Point is, if you „need“ own IP space, that is always out of free will, curiosity, business concept or something similar, but never by force. You just weaken yourself by enclosing a generally valid statement in questionable context. However, to get back to the topic, I feel it is by far not enough to just blame RIPE NCC for signing a MoU without pointing out what exactly is questionable from your POV in terms of cotent. Did you even read it? To me, the content is far from being an „close ally“, and Europol with its mission and entitlements is also far from national intelligence agencies. Cheers, Malte -- 
Malte von dem Hagen | Director Networks 
malte@godaddy.com
 <mailto:malte.von.dem.hagen@godaddy.com>Office: Hansestrasse 79, 51149 Cologne
 Host Europe Internet GmbH - http://www.hosteurope.de <http://www.hosteurope.de/> 
Welserstraße 14 - 51149 Köln - Germany
 HRB 78934 Amtsgericht Köln 
Geschäftsführer: Patrick Pulvermüller, Tobias Mohr, Dr. Christian Koch Host Europe Internet GmbH is a company of GoDaddy

In message <AE4701B9-95FB-4176-8E47-C69AB0825B08@godaddy.com>, Malte von dem Hagen <malte@godaddy.com> wrote:

We can of course start calling each other's statements idiotic...

I'm sorry. I confess that I haven't really been paying attention to to this thread because I've been busy working on other things (e.g. Telia and its connection to the bogosity that is AS202746). Was the above comment intended to be the start of a formal RIPE proposal ratification process? If so, I would just like to express my sincere support for the proposal, but with certain limited exemptions. (I think that it would be best if people from California, original home of the Arpanet, and subsequently, the Internet, were exempt. And by that I mean that we should be specially exempt from having our statements called "idotic", *not* that we should be prevented from calling the statements of others "idotic", when and if warranted.) Regards, rfg

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 05:19:50PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:

This is the first I've even heard of this. Surely the membership should at least be asked whether they want an organisation they are *mandatory* members of to become a close ally of a political LEA like Europol.

Oh, and can we expect to be made mandatory collaborators with the FSB and the KDGM as well, given that they are in our service region? rgds, Sascha Luck

Hi Sascha,

Op 1 aug. 2017, om 18:19 heeft Sascha Luck [ml] <aawg@c4inet.net> het volgende geschreven:

It certainly is "interesting". For instance:

"we recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Europol to foster even better cooperation."

https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/europol-mou

This is the first I've even heard of this. Surely the membership should at least be asked whether they want an organisation they are *mandatory* members of to become a close ally of a political LEA like Europol.

If you dislike the engagement that RIPE NCC has with external organisations (see https://www.ripe.net/about-us/what-we-do/engagement-external-organisations) then the RIPE NCC General Meeting and/or exec-board@ripe.net seem the appropriate places to provide feedback. I don't think the RIPE anti-abuse working group is the right place for that. Cheers, Sander

Hi Sascha On 01/08/2017 21:58, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:

On the RIPE community side, I find these statements problematic:

"[LEAs] also have a right to help shape RIPE Policy using the Policy Development Process."

They do? My understanding of the PDP is that *individuals* make policy proposals and *individuals* discuss them. Is this no longer the case? Is RIPE policy now made by lobby groups and other "interested" organisations? And, yes, I am aware that individuals may be fronting for an organisation, this does not, in my understanding, mean their voice carries any more weight.

As you said, many times individuals propose policies on behalf of organisations or a collective of individuals. Often, after some discussion on a mailing list, someone offers to author a policy proposal based on the collective discussion. Where does this point about 'carries more weight' come from? There was no reference to this in the article or in any responses to your comments. And besides the PDP follows a process that includes open discussion and drawing a consensus based on that discussion. There is no element of weighting in the process.

"Part of my job is to help LEAs understand this process and how their suggestions on changing policy would impact the broader RIPE community, such as making changes to the RIPE Database, for example, that would make it easier for them to find the closest service provider to an end user engaged in criminal activity. This isn't special treatment, though �the RIPE NCC also helps governments, network operators, banks, business owners or anyone else interested in submitting a policy proposal do these things as well. It's part of our job as the RIPE secretariat."

I was under the impression that this is the function of the NCC Impact Statement within the PDP. Neither does ripe-642 mention any discussions with or "help" from the NCC prior to the working group process. Perhaps someone can amplify on this?

It has always been part of the RIPE NCC's work to help with understanding and following process. That is why they write documentation, run training courses and have Customer Support. Whether it is written or not, it has been said many times that the PDO will assist anyone who wishes to write a policy proposal. cheers denis

rgds, Sascha Luck

Hi Vittorio On 02/08/2017 12:03, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

...

Il 1 agosto 2017 alle 23.47 denis <ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk> ha scritto:

...

"Part of my job is to help LEAs understand this process and how their suggestions on changing policy would impact the broader RIPE community, such as making changes to the RIPE Database, for example, that would make it easier for them to find the closest service provider to an end user engaged in criminal activity. This isn't special treatment, though �the RIPE NCC also helps governments, network operators, banks, business owners or anyone else interested in submitting a policy proposal do these things as well. It's part of our job as the RIPE secretariat."

I was under the impression that this is the function of the NCC Impact Statement within the PDP. Neither does ripe-642 mention any discussions with or "help" from the NCC prior to the working group process. Perhaps someone can amplify on this?

It has always been part of the RIPE NCC's work to help with understanding and following process. That is why they write documentation, run training courses and have Customer Support. Whether it is written or not, it has been said many times that the PDO will assist anyone who wishes to write a policy proposal.

Just as a suggestion, though, I will point out that stating "we don't treat governmental LEAs better, because we also help governments, us, people with money, people with money or anyone else" is not a great way to present this working plan. The list of targets for help should also include NGOs, academics, developers, free software projects, civil society groups and individual Internet users at large, i.e. constituencies that have a much harder time than governments and businesses to get heard into any bottom-up Internet policy-making process.

It is not a question of 'getting heard', it is knowing you have a voice and where to use it. Literally anyone can join a discussion on a Working Group mailing list, make comments, ask questions, agree or disagree with other comments, propose a policy. The RIPE NCC's Policy Development Officer will help anyone who wants to propose a policy in any area of concern. It would be nice to have a wider participation and hear more voices in some discussions. Neither the RIPE NCC nor the RIPE community has a list of 'targets'. Over the last 10 years governments and LEAs have taken much more interest in the Internet management, operation and governance. This is not unexpected as the Internet has become so integral in so many people's lives. As they have asked questions the RIPE NCC, under the guidance of the RIPE Community and RIPE NCC membership, has reached out to answer those questions. If any of the groups you mentioned also join discussions and ask questions they will also be heard and answered. cheers denis

Regards,

--

Vittorio Bertola | Research & Innovation Engineer vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com <mailto:vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> Open-Xchange Srl - Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy

HI Vittorio On 02/08/2017 12:53, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

...

Il 2 agosto 2017 alle 12.23 denis <ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk> ha scritto:

It is not a question of 'getting heard', it is knowing you have a voice and where to use it. Literally anyone can join a discussion on a Working Group mailing list, make comments, ask questions, agree or disagree with other comments, propose a policy. The RIPE NCC's Policy Development Officer will help anyone who wants to propose a policy in any area of concern. It would be nice to have a wider participation and hear more voices in some discussions.

Neither the RIPE NCC nor the RIPE community has a list of 'targets'. Over the last 10 years governments and LEAs have taken much more interest in the Internet management, operation and governance. This is not unexpected as the Internet has become so integral in so many people's lives. As they have asked questions the RIPE NCC, under the guidance of the RIPE Community and RIPE NCC membership, has reached out to answer those questions. If any of the groups you mentioned also join discussions and ask questions they will also be heard and answered.

I'm not saying that RIPE is doing anything bad or with any bad intent, also I didn't really mean to start a thread, but even if this precise discussion has been going on for a long time at ICANN and elsewhere about 15 years ago, and views on it really vary, it looks like RIPE still has to deal with it.

The point is that having an open door and saying "if you have anything to say, just show up" is not enough, if you really want to make balanced policies. Some stakeholders, like governments and business, have well funded employees and lobbyists that can afford showing up, while other stakeholders don't. In fact, the "public interest" is the hardest thing to keep into account, because any narrow group with specific interests can show up and scream to push your policies in their favour, while the general public has a weak interest that only becomes huge if you could aggregate several billion Internet users, which you can't practically do. So either you make active efforts to include these other points of view, e.g. like ICANN has been doing, or you will always risk to produce policies biased in favour of those few that actually can afford to show up, and against the general public interest.

(Also, we may be going off topic, so apologies in advance - happy to continue elsewhere if you like.)

I think this has moved off the original topic and is more about diversity. There is now a separate mailing list for diversity issues: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/diversity/ From what I have seen (and I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong) they seem more focused on 'diversity of peoples'. A current topic is the issue of gender at RIPE Meetings. But to me if you work under the general heading of 'diversity' that should cover all aspects of diversity. Some people may believe the corporate world is much more represented than the individual netizen at these meetings and on these mailing lists. Then I would say the diversity group should look at how to actively improve the diversity of representation at meetings to achieve a better balance and ensure the general public interest is served, avoiding the possibility of policies being made just for the rich and powerful. I think such a discussion would be better moved to the diversity mailing list. cheers denis

Regards,

--

Vittorio Bertola | Research & Innovation Engineer vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com <mailto:vittorio.bertola@open-xchange.com> Open-Xchange Srl - Office @ Via Treviso 12, 10144 Torino, Italy

Vittorio, On 02/08/2017 11:53, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

I'm not saying that RIPE is doing anything bad or with any bad intent, also I didn't really mean to start a thread, but even if this precise discussion has been going on for a long time at ICANN and elsewhere about 15 years ago, and views on it really vary, it looks like RIPE still has to deal with it.

The point is that having an open door and saying "if you have anything to say, just show up" is not enough, if you really want to make balanced policies. Some stakeholders, like governments and business, have well funded employees and lobbyists that can afford showing up, while other stakeholders don't. In fact, the "public interest" is the hardest thing to keep into account, because any narrow group with specific interests can show up and scream to push your policies in their favour, while the general public has a weak interest that only becomes huge if you could aggregate several billion Internet users, which you can't practically do. So either you make active efforts to include these other points of view, e.g. like ICANN has been doing, or you will always risk to produce policies biased in favour of those few that actually can afford to show up, and against the general public interest.

This is hugely important and has been a recent topic of conversation in the community. The RIPE NCC and the Community have been working for some time to lower barriers to entry and to actively seek out those who either don't know how to engage or can't engage. Are we done yet? Absolutely not. But things are always improving. The External Relations team and the Training team in the NCC do a lot here, as to the Board and various Community members. This work is achieved through RIPE meetings, Regional Meetings, training, NOGs, member lunches etc. Policies in RIPE are driven by a number of different people and groups, but quite often the people putting finger to keyboard don't work for big companies, or sometimes any company at all! The mailing list model has always been an attempt to make sure barriers to participation are as low as possible, the RIPE Forum idea is an attempt to open it up more. The recently set-up Diversity TF is also looking at a number of these questions. So, we aren't there yet, certainly, but the work is ongoing in both a pro-active and re-active fashion and certainly, while this thread may not be the place for it, the WG Chairs, the RIPE Meeting PC and the NCC would all welcome input on these matters. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair RIPE AA-WG Brian Nisbet Network 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@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270