- coc-tf - mailman.ripe.net

Draft agenda for Friday's call
by Leo Vegoda 01 Dec '20

01 Dec '20

Dear TF, Here is a draft agenda for Friday's call. Suggestions for improvements are welcome. Kind regards, Leo Title Who What Time Outcome Minutes TF Review the draft minutes of the previous meeting. Agree any changes. Finalize. 2 mins Minutes Agenda TF Review agenda and adjust as needed. 2 mins Agenda Actions All Review status of actions from the previous meeting: - RIPE NCC to request statistical information (only) from the Trusted Contacts on reports made in recent RIPE Meetings to help it consider aspects around process/size of CoC Team, etc. - TF members to review document and provide comments on structure. - Leo to put together initial text regarding record-keeping. - Leo to ask for RIPE Chair Team’s perspective on CoC/RIPE NCC board elections. 10 mins Status RIPE Chair DB & LV Update on check-in with Mirjam and Niall 10 mins Information sharing Questions All Resume discussion of questions document and decide: - What do we want to keep? - What do we want to adjust? - What do we need to add? 20 mins Direction Structure All Review draft document structure <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zkYiQPkX6tq09tdpQdL_URbvfnILgwrqRn2zq2e…> and decide on changes. 10 mins Updated structure AOB - Any other business. 5 mins - Actions NCC Review actions agreed during the meeting 1 mins Action list

1 0

Draft Minutes - Code of Conduct TF: Fourth Call (18 Nov)
by Antony Gollan 30 Nov '20

30 Nov '20

Dear TF members, * * Here are the draft minutes from our last call. Corrections welcome. Cheers Ant **** * *Draft Minutes - Code of Conduct TF: **Fourth**Call **18**November, 1**7**:30-1**8**:30 (UTC+1)* *Present: *Denesh Bhabuta, Athina Fragkouli, Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda, Salam Yamout *Summary: *The TF discussed concerns around the recent GM vote to apply the RIPE community’s CoC to Executive Board elections. It was noted that jurisdictions (in terms of which country a RIPE Meeting was held in) would have little bearing on the CoC, as this was a private agreement between two parties. The group discussed legal requirements around record-keeping and personal data. It was noted that much of this would depend on the process that was eventually developed (e.g. personal data would need to be kept at least until the expiry of any appeal period, and potentially longer if a “three-strikes” approach is used). The TF agreed to produce some initial text on record-keeping that could be reviewed by the RIPE NCC. The group noted that it had fallen behind its ambitious time frame, but agreed that it was better to wait until it had something substantial to say before sending another message to the community (though the TF may share at least a brief update before the end of the year). *1.**Minutes* The draft minutes from the previous call were approved without changes. *2.**Agenda* ** There were no changes to the agenda. *3.**Actions from last meeting* ** The following actions had been completed: ** -*Include a summary at the start of future minutes.* -*RIPE NCC to make mailing list archives public.* -*TF chair to respond to request to participate and let them know that while the ML won’t be opened to non-TF members, they can access the archives and are invited to send a mail to the list if they would like to make a contribution. * Athina said she could provide input on the next action: -*Athina to provide input on the decision by the RIPE NCC GM to reference the CoC in relation to potential EB candidates, as well as input on what kind of records a future CoC Team would need to keep (and for how long).* Athina said this requirement aimed to exclude people from standing as candidates in board elections if they misbehaved. The RIPE NCC Executive Board Election TF hadn’t wanted to create something new and had thought the existing CoC was simple and seemed good enough for their purposes. However, the TF had also recommended that the board create a separate CoC that was based on the community’s one. Similarly, when it came to assessing violations, the TF didn’t want to reinvent the wheel, and thought the existing Trusted Contacts could fill this role. The end result would involve a new/separate document which was based on the RIPE community’s CoC and that used the existing Trusted Contacts to make determinations. She said the question was then whether the CoC-TF would produce a new document and whether the board would prefer that to the existing one. This might be the case, but it would be the board’s decision. She didn’t think it was something that the CoC-TF needed to consider when developing their document. Brian said if this was how it worked (in terms of the board making this decision), then that was fine with him. However, he was still concerned about the process/enforcement. There was only one Trusted Contact currently who was not a RIPE NCC staff member. He was also concerned that a potential future CoC Team would be drawn into this role, which was quite a different task. So, while Athina had addressed one of his concerns, another remained. Denesh asked if this CoC for board candidates would only apply “during” the election period or if it would also consider prior behaviour. If it determined who could stand in elections, then he would be quite concerned, as there were all sorts of due diligence considerations. He was fine with having requirements during the election process itself. Athina said it would be limited to who could stand as board candidates in elections. A nominee only became a candidate once they had five people supporting them; so they weren’t talking about who could be nominated. Leo said his understanding was that the Trusted Contacts/future CoC Team would essentially be asked to decide if a nominee was qualified to become a candidate. He asked if there was the potential for conflicts of interest. He asked if it would be the CoC Team that responded, or if there would be an official record keeper (potentially the RIPE NCC) that would consider past behaviour. Athina said the RIPE NCC ran this process – it accepted nominations (publicly archived) and decided who could be a candidate. According to the new process adopted by the GM, nominees would have to provide ID and sign a statement that they would adhere to a CoC (as defined by the board) and had not committed any fraud. After doing this, they became qualified as candidates. If there were complaints after this point, that was where the Trusted Contacts would need to conduct an evaluation. She expected these complaints would come directly to the RIPE NCC, or otherwise to a public mailing list. If they received a complaint, she assumed the RIPE NCC would forward this to the Trusted Contacts to make an evaluation. Salam said it sounded like what they were doing as a TF was completely separate from the board elections. Their focus was on the RIPE community – it was up to the board to decide whether what they produced was also helpful for them. What Athina described sounded like any other CoC complaint and could be handled in the same way. This meant the CoC Team would be the place to take any issue affecting the RIPE community – whether this involved a potential board candidate or a regular community member. She thought they should do their job and let the board decide if this was good enough, or if the board needed to design a separate process for their elections. But this led to questions about what the CoC Team did with complaints – whether they had to store them to see if someone was repeatedly violating the CoC. Brian said his concern was that they might put their process in place and the board would simply agree to use this for their elections. This might lead to a different (or reduced) pool of volunteers for the CoC Team. Some people might not want to get involved in the sorts of issues surrounding board elections. Salam asked if they needed to decide whether that RIPE NCC elections were out of scope from the beginning. Brian thought they should decide whether the board should be allowed to simply take the RIPE community’s CoC. His concern was that this would be massive scope creep and it was not up to the board to decide this. Salam said she was thinking that a violation of the CoC was the same in either case – bad behaviour was bad behaviour. The team would only decide whether something was a violation – it wouldn’t decide on the actual consequences. If someone’s actions meant they were unable to stand in the board elections, that was not the business of the CoC Team. Denesh said the CoC would be about complaints received during a particular process (e.g. during a RIPE Meeting or on a mailing list). Action would be taken at that time, potentially starting an investigation. It seemed to him that this could also be applied retroactively – people might complain based on something that had happened in the past. He thought they needed to be careful here, and in that way, he partly agreed with both Brian and Salam’s points. Athina said this might need to be clarified in the process the board would come up with – to show how it would be implemented. She added that the work of the Trusted Contacts had two stages – the first was to evaluate whether there was a violation – the second was to determine an appropriate outcome. In the context of the RIPE community, the Trusted Contacts could do both; they might decide to remove someone from a mailing list, for example. In the case of board elections, they would only be expected to determine whether a violation had occurred, as there was only one outcome if that was the case. Brian asked if determining someone couldn’t be a candidate could expose the CoC Team to risks. He saw a big difference between saying someone couldn’t attend a RIPE Meeting vs saying they were not eligible to stand in board elections. Athina said there could be liability issues, but these were the same as in other cases (e.g. arbitration rulings) There were ways to mitigate this risk. There might be an indemnification clause, or they might find liability insurance. This was something she could discuss internally if the TF felt it would be necessary. Leo summarised his understanding: there would not be a review by the CoC Team/Trusted Contacts of past actions in the context of board elections. So, there was no need to keep records here, as it was only for that brief period during the elections. However, it would impact who would be called on to adjudicate these cases – as they might have a RIPE NCC staff member or a board member on the CoC Team. He didn’t think this was something for them to solve now, but it was something that the RIPE NCC could look at and come up with a plan that didn’t discourage people from joining the CoC Team if they were reluctant to assume additional responsibilities. Brian said an alternative was to say that they were a community TF and didn’t want to be dragged into RIPE NCC issues. They already had the issue of having only one community member who was currently the sole arbiter for deciding this. He thought this was overreach and it was foolish of the board and membership to agree to this without properly considering the implications. Athina clarified that there was no mention of this process in the Articles of Association. In Section 6 of the Elections TF, they talked about Trusted Contacts and in parenthesis said this shouldn’t include RIPE NCC staff and potentially the RIPE Chair. *4.**Questions* Leo said in the interests of time, he would remove the “Structure” item from the agenda, as this would require some discussion. He asked that they instead focus on the “Questions” element. *Jurisdiction – can process remain the same between different meeting jurisdictions?* Athina said countries obviously had their own restrictions and the community couldn’t violate rule of law in other countries. But you could also have agreements between private individuals, and these were none of these countries’ business (provided they didn’t violate the laws/values of these countries). If they said that, for a RIPE Meeting, all participants would have to enter into an agreement with the RIPE NCC (as the organiser), and the CoC was part of this agreement, then participants would be bound by the CoC. If they violated this, the RIPE NCC would have the right to ask them to leave. Ultimately, they were talking about a private agreement, and the country the meeting was being held in didn’t play a big role here. *Record keeping* ** Leo said the RIPE NCC had said in its past impact analysis that it wanted to manage record keeping. Looking at other CoCs they had looked at, it was not simply records of outcomes, but also reports, investigations, working documents, and communications. He asked if the RIPE NCC had any ideas about what it would want to do here. Athina said when considering personal data, they needed a legal basis for collecting it. She thought their legal basis (from the law) would be “public interest”. The question was how long they could hold this data. The answer would be for as long as appropriate, according to purpose. She imagined that the CoC Team would gather data during its investigations. The question was whether this data should be deleted once the investigation was concluded. However, if there was an appeal process, then this data would need to be held at least for as long as this appeal process. Another question was whether there would be a “three-strike” approach; if-so, they would need to keep information about past cases. On the other hand, if each case was taken on its merits and each report started with a clean slate, then they would not be able to keep this data (or at least it would have to be anonymised). Salam said she was curious how this was done in other communities and whether they were making this overly complicated. Brian said many of the events he was involved in were bad at keeping records – especially in terms of identifying patterns of behaviour (which was the primary reason to keep reports in his view). Athina said in that case, they would need to make a case and build a story to support their argument that they would keep this information in the public interest. Leo said his understanding of the RIPE NCC’s impact analysis was that it would need to have some kind of database, at least of decisions, so it could properly implement them. If someone was not able to attend the next three RIPE Meetings or was not able to post to mailing lists for six months – then the RIPE NCC would need to have access to this information so it could track whether it was implemented and when it would need to expire. What Brian had said in terms of behavioural trends – if they had four reports about a person that were not actionable but showed a trend – this was something they would also need to think through as a group. Brian said these were some of the more complicated questions he had seen around CoCs. If someone was consistently skirting the line, then it was easy for people to forget. People also often overlooked the fact that if someone was constantly skirting the line, perhaps it indicated wider issues. So, this seemed like a reason to keep this information. Leo suggested they could steal elements from other communities (properly attributed) and try to fit this into something for Athina to review. Brian noted that the RIPE NCC as secretariat and meeting host had certain things it needed to cover. Due to the risk-averse nature of the RIPE NCC, they might find themselves in a situation that was more formal than what a smaller community might be able to get away with. Salam said there was the question of where they stopped and where the RIPE NCC began. Perhaps their job as a TF was just to give a decision – they could delete data that was used to create a decision after a certain point (i.e. appeal) and let the RIPE NCC handle this. Regarding actions, Leo said he’d put together something around the structure of the document. He would appreciate if the TF could start editing this or making comments. Regarding their timeline, they had hoped to get something out by November, which was a little ambitious. *Action: TF members to review document and provide comments on structure* ** *Action: Leo to put together initial text regarding record-keeping. * ** *5.**Communication* Leo said that, as the work of the TF hadn’t progressed as quickly as they had planned, perhaps they might consider whether further communication with the community was needed. Antony said that as the RIPE Meeting was behind them, perhaps they should wait until they had something more specific to say. It would be good to share some general directions or open questions with the community in advance of publishing an updated draft, to get initial feedback and avoid any surprises. Salam asked if they should share the structure once they had it. Antony said potentially, otherwise they might share some leading questions. Brian said he didn’t think they needed to send an update in November. Everyone understood that timelines were often a little blurry for TFs and he would prefer they wait until they had something more substantial to say. The real deadline for them would be the next RIPE Meeting. Denesh suggested a short and very quick update before the end of the year. Perhaps they could simply note that they were meeting every two weeks. That way, the community would see that work was happening and progress was being made. Leo said that was good. He added that he and Denesh would soon meet with the RIPE Chair Team to give them an update – they seemed to want to maintain regular contact with the TFs to see how they were going. Brian suggested that Leo gather the RIPE Chair Team’s thoughts on the issue of the RIPE CoC being applied to RIPE NCC Executive Board elections. Leo said he would do that. ** *Action: Leo to ask for RIPE Chair Team’s perspective on CoC/RIPE NCC board elections. * ** *6.**Review of actions from meeting* ** *Action: TF members to review document and provide comments on structure* ** *Action: Leo to put together initial text regarding record-keeping. * ** *Action: Leo to ask for RIPE Chair Team’s perspective on CoC/RIPE NCC board elections. * *(From previous call): RIPE NCC to request statistical information from trusted contacts. * ** *7.**AOB* It was confirmed that the next TF call would take place according to the regular Friday schedule.

1 0

Python Community CoC & Procedures
by Brian Nisbet 16 Nov '20

16 Nov '20

https://www.python.org/psf/conduct/ 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(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

3 4

FYI: FIRST Code of Conduct
by Mirjam Kuehne 16 Nov '20

16 Nov '20

Hi all, In case you are not aware of the FIRST Code of Conduct: https://www.first.org/about/policies/code-of-conduct I like that they list "expected behaviour" before going into "unacceptable behaviour". Mirjam

1 0

Draft agenda for next week's call
by Leo Vegoda 13 Nov '20

13 Nov '20

Dear TF, I hope you all have a super weekend. Here is a draft agenda for next week's call. I welcome suggestions for improvements. Kind regards, Leo Title Who What Time Outcome Minutes TF Review the draft minutes of the previous meeting. Agree any changes. Finalize. 2 mins Minutes Agenda TF Review agenda and adjust as needed. 2 mins Agenda Actions All Review status of actions from the previous meeting: - Include a summary at the start of future minutes. - RIPE NCC to make mailing list archives public. - TF chair to respond to request to participate and let them know that while the ML won’t be opened to non-TF members, they can access the archives and are invited to send a mail to the list if they would like to make a contribution. - Athina to provide input on the decision by the RIPE NCC GM to reference the CoC in relation to potential EB candidates, as well as input on what kind of records a future CoC Team would need to keep (and for how long). - RIPE NCC to request statistical information (only) from the Trusted Contacts on reports made in recent RIPE Meetings to help it consider aspects around process/size of CoC Team, etc. 20 mins Status Questions All Resume discussion of questions document and decide: - What do we want to keep? - What do we want to adjust? - What do we need to add? 20 mins Direction Structure All Review draft document structure <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zkYiQPkX6tq09tdpQdL_URbvfnILgwrqRn2zq2e…> and decide on changes. 10 mins Updated structure Communication All How do we want to communicate our progress to the community? 5 mins Agreement AOB - Any other business. 5 mins - Actions NCC Review actions agreed during the meeting 1 mins Action list

1 0

(Correction) Draft Minutes - Code of Conduct TF: Third Call
by Antony Gollan 13 Nov '20

13 Nov '20

Dear TF members, Just noting that I had the incorrect date in the minutes I sent around yesterday - I've updated this below (18 Nov --> 6 Nov). Cheers Ant *** *Draft Minutes - Code of Conduct TF: Third**Call **6 November, 16:30-17:30 (UTC+1)* *Present: *Denesh Bhabuta, Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda, Salam Yamout *Summary:*The TF discussed a request to contribute to the mailing list and agreed that people could access the archives and send comments to the list if they had input. A recent outcome from the GM alongside RIPE 81 linked Executive Board eligibility requirements to the RIPE Code of Conduct, and created a role for the Trusted Contacts/future CoC Team in making this determination. The TF agreed that this will need consideration and requested input from the RIPE NCC. A number of open questions were discussed in advance of updating the CoC document: People should not require HR or legal qualifications to conduct investigations, though the process should be developed with this specialist input; It will be important for a CoC process to include clear time frames where possible; While the CoC Team should do its utmost to protect the confidentiality of involved parties, it will be important to set expectations; The people conducting CoC investigations should not be the only ones making the final determination, a wider quorum should be required. The RIPE Chair should not be involved in this, as they would be needed as a “final arbiter” in the event of an appeal. The TF will request statistical information (only) from the Trusted Contacts on the number of complaints made at previous RIPE Meetings. *1.**1. Minutes* Minutes from the previous call were approved. The group agreed to include a summary with key decisions at the top of future minutes for public consumption. The group agreed. *Action: Include a summary at the start of future minutes.* *2.**2. Agenda*** There were no changes to the agenda. *3.**3. Observers* Leo noted that he had received a request from someone interested in joining the mailing list to contribute. After discussing this with the RIPE Chair Team, they had agreed that there had been an open call for participation and membership of the TF was now closed. So, this wouldn’t be participation as a TF member. However, they could open up the mailing list if the TF wanted. He asked if there were other TFs that had had open lists during the discussion phase. Antony said he didn’t have a full list of how this had worked with past groups, but with the Accountability TF they had kept public archives with moderation in place. That let people see what was being discussed, and they could still send an email to the TF if they wanted. It was essentially one step below having an open list. There had been variations of this in the past, but it was generally common for TF archives to be public. Denesh said they needed to keep it to a relatively small group of people, otherwise it became “decision by committee.” He liked Antony’s suggestion, though it was important they solicit input from people. Brian said the Diversity TF had been as open as possible. He was torn between remaining a small/focused group and opening it up. He wasn’t sure what they had meant by “access to the mailing list so that they could contribute”, because the TF wasn’t doing everything on the list (they were having these calls, for example). So, there was more buy-in required than simply accessing the mailing list. Salam said she didn’t mind having them join the TF – the CoC mattered to everyone, so she wouldn’t object – provided the group didn’t get so big that it became inefficient. Leo said in his discussion with the RIPE Chair Team, they agreed that it was the responsibility of the RIPE Chair to decide who was on the TF. If they now said they would another TF member after the open call for volunteers, that took them back to the beginning. So, they needed to be careful about extending membership based on individual requests. Salam said in that case they documented this decision and made the archives public for anyone who would like to follow the discussion. *Action: RIPE NCC to make mailing list archives public. * *Action: **TF chair to respond to request to participate and let them know that while the ML won’t be opened to non-TF members, they can access the archives and are invited to send a mail to the list if they would like to make a contribution.* *4.**4. RIPE 81 Feedback * Brian noted the vote by the RIPE NCC General Meeting to adopt the recommendations of the Executive Board Election TF, one of which said that prospective board members must abide by the CoC and someone must okay this. He would need to review at the full GM minutes, but he understood this was about someone arbitrating whether potential board members were abiding by the CoC. He thought the Trusted Contacts weren’t qualified for this, and he believed the board had said the CoC TF should look at this. That meant the TF was now potentially enmeshed in this. Denesh said this went back to one of Leo’s questions from an earlier call – whether the CoC was meant to cover every activity within RIPE. They had agreed that it wasn’t so broad but this seemed to be pulling them in that direction again. Brian said that was his point. He thought the RIPE NCC membership had made mistake here, which would have unintended consequences. As a TF they would need to be mindful of this and be clear in terms of what they would be asking a future CoC Team to do. This was something they would need to have as an item for discussion with (potentially) Athina, the RIPE NCC Managing Director, the Chairman of the RIPE NCC Executive Board. He wasn’t sure exactly where this should sit, but they couldn’t just ignore this, as people might draw differing conclusions. Leo suggested they include this as an agenda item for a future meeting, and that they ask for an impact analysis from Athina that explained what this meant for them and what the TF would have to deliver. Salam said the idea was that violations of the CoC would need to be recorded on a list somewhere, and people running for the board of the RIPE NCC could be checked against this to determine whether they were eligible to stand. She agreed that this would affect them in terms of the CoC and they would need to deal with this. Brian said his point was that this was a RIPE NCC Executive Board problem that was being pushed to the CoC Team and he didn’t think it should be. Salam said they didn’t have to pick up the ball. But surely the CoC they would include a requirement that a list of violators be kept, obviously with some sort of process attached. If they had this, then that was where their task ended in relation to this requirement from the board. Leo said one of the questions he had put into the document was about record keeping and what they should/should not keep a record of (and when this information should expire). This was something they would need legal guidance from Athina on when she returned. Brian said he would share a copy of the Executive Board Election Task Force report which specified these recommendations in relation to the CoC Team. *Action: Athina to provide input on the decision by the RIPE NCC GM to reference the CoC in relation to potential EB candidates, as well as input on what kind of records a future CoC Team would need to keep (and for how long). * *5.**Review of Questions in Document * The group continued its review of the questions in the document Leo had provided. *Investigation – Professional Qualifications*** Leo said the question here was whether the investigation should be managed by someone with relevant HR or legal qualifications. Salam asked if interested volunteers could be trained for this. Denesh agreed that interested people should be trained. However, there needed to be a process on how to conduct the investigation. This would need to be designed with the help of HR/legal people. This would allow anyone who had been trained to follow the process. There would need to be someone with professional qualifications on hand, though they wouldn’t necessarily have to manage the process. Leo said if they had strong expectations in terms of training and time at the meeting devoted to investigations, they were placing quite a burden on someone who might be attending with other responsibilities (chairing a session, giving a presentation, etc). This could lead to cases where the investigator was engaged in something else and was not able to find a resolution by the end of the week. He asked if it would be better to have a professional instead and have a community member make a decision on the outcome, or if they were happy asking someone to potentially sacrifice their participation at the meeting for this. Brian said other communities made sure to have a large enough pool of people so that one of them could drop everything if needed. If something came up it could be disruptive for the CoC Team, but in reality, chairing a session or attending a meeting was just a few hours. The other option was essentially to employ someone for a few weeks each year to avoid this problem, but he didn’t like this approach personally. Salam supported the first option Brian had suggested. Some people would be interested in volunteering, and if they had a large enough pool this should be fine. The process could establish how people were selected from the pool (and how many). They would need training to join the pool. During the investigation they would have HR and legal support if needed. Sometimes these volunteers would have to sacrifice part of their meeting, but that was how it worked. She thought it was important for the community to take care of itself and have the processes to deal with its own problems – it was part of their culture. Leo said he took this as rejecting a requirement that the person leading the investigation have HR/legal qualifications. However, they would want strong involvement in the design of the investigation process from people with these qualifications. *Investigation – Schedule* Leo asked what a reasonable time frame was – both from the perspective of those conducting the investigation and of those who made a report. One thing he noticed was that the DNS WG was holding monthly online events, there were mailing lists that went on all the time, and formal RIPE Meetings twice per year. The scope of their charter was all RIPE activities – which meant mailing lists, intersessional work and RIPE Meetings. So, when they looked at scheduling, they would need to consider all of these things. He thought they needed some borders in terms of minimum/maximum time frames. Brian said expectations should be able to be set, both for the victim and the alleged perpetrator. It was important that this was in there. Leo said they didn’t need to come up with an answer immediately, but they did need to let people know what to expect – when they could expect a resolution to be found, when they could expect to be contacted, etc. Much of this would be guided by the process; a more complex process would take longer and vice versa. Brian said it would be fair to expect most of the investigation to be done while people were physically/virtually at the event. If the issue occurred during the Friday lunch time at a RIPE Meeting, then obviously they would need to be realistic. However, they couldn’t leave this for too long, because memories faded, and stories changed. Leo said the other thing to keep in mind was that the RIPE Chair Team had talked about hybrid meetings with people both at the meeting venue and elsewhere. And with virtual meetings they had people in different time zones. When they built this process, they needed be mindful that no one participating at 1am was at their best. Brian said the conventions he was involved with used a “follow the sun” model as much as possible. If they cast a wide net and volunteers didn’t necessarily have to be present at the meeting, this could be a positive thing. Salam said she was imagining an “uber” model – where people in the pool grabbed an issue and assumed responsibility for it. Salam asked if they had a pool of people for the CoC Team, would they have to disclose their names and phone numbers? And if so, would this be GDPR compliant? Brian said he assumed they would list the names of the CoC Team – and the RIPE NCC could then arrange some method of communication that would largely be around email or voice communications and wouldn’t require personal contact information to be listed. Salam clarified that she was thinking in terms of the parties involved in the report. Antony said he thought Legal did have some GDPR concerns here. Athina would likely have more to share on this in any case. *Investigation – Confidentiality* Leo asked if it was possible to guarantee confidentiality to reporters. Brian said the CoC Team would have to undertake to ensure this, but there was no legal sanction and realistically there was only so much of a guarantee they could offer. Denesh said they could address this in the wording – they could say they would do their utmost to ensure confidentiality without going so far as to explicitly guarantee it. Leo said past training he’d done as a manager had said they couldn’t promise people they would ensure confidentiality (e.g. “doing their best” vs “guaranteeing”). They couldn’t promise this because it could potentially compromise an investigation. Denesh said they also couldn’t control people outside of the investigation, there could be rumours, etc. They could only promise to do their utmost to treat information in a confidential manner. Brian said that would have to be a requirement to join the CoC Team – they would have to undertake to ensure confidentiality. There might be people they would have to speak with during their investigation, but in an ideal process they would check with the relevant parties first. This could be a request for permission or otherwise more in terms of a notification that they would be speaking with others. The CoC Team violating the confidentiality of involved parties in this context would essentially itself be a violation of the CoC. Salam noted that to a certain extent, people should be aware that rumours were inevitable if they broke the community’s norms. These social repercussions were partly why they should behave well. Brian said rumours already existed without a CoC; they just needed to ensure they didn’t come from this process or those entrusted to follow it. Leo said they would need advice on how to word statements involving confidentiality. *Decision Making* Leo said this question was about the separation of duties. Did they want the same person to be both the investigator and the decider – or should these be different people? Brian said he wondered if they could steal best practices from other communities here. He thought the person investigating should at least not be the only one making the decision, but he would need to look at other examples in more detail. He thought the decision should at least not only be made by those doing the investigation. Leo said this was good, as it had affected the schedule as well. If they said there should be some separation, then they needed to account for that in the schedule. And they would need to account for that in terms of the people involved, so it was giving them some borders in terms of what they were working on. Salam suggested they could have at least two people conducting the investigation with a third party (such as the RIPE Chair) helping to making the decision. Leo said his concern was that they would probably need the RIPE Chair to fill an appeal role. If the RIPE Chair was involved in the initial decision, then they would have to create a separate appeal body. Brian said the WG chairs been through this with an appeal in the PDP recently. They had said the RIPE Chair needed to remain separate in case they needed to weigh as a “final arbiter”. He didn’t think this third party needed to be a designated person. Using hypothetical numbers, if there was a CoC Team with six people, perhaps two of them did the investigation and no fewer than four or five made the decision. This would probably also require some participation from the RIPE NCC’s Legal Department. He thought it shouldn’t be the same person making all of these decisions. Leo said the word he was hearing was quorum. Brian agreed. The group stopped before “Record Keeping” in the document. * 5. AOB* Brian said it would be nice to have some statistical information about reports made to the CoC Team across recent RIPE Meetings. *Action: **RIPE NCC to request statistical information (only) from the Trusted Contacts on reports made in recent RIPE Meetings to help it consider aspects around process/size of CoC Team, etc. * The TF agreed to reschedule the next call for Wednesday, 18 November at 17:30 (CET/UTC+1). * 6. Review Actions* *Action: Include a summary at the start of future minutes.*** *Action: RIPE NCC to make mailing list archives public. * *Action: **TF chair to respond to request to participate and let them know that while the ML won’t be opened to non-TF members, they can access the archives and are invited to send a mail to the list if they would like to make a contribution.*** *Action: Athina to provide input on the decision by the RIPE NCC GM to reference the CoC in relation to potential EB candidates, as well as input on what kind of records a future CoC Team would need to keep (and for how long). * *Action: RIPE NCC to request statistical information (only) from the Trusted Contacts on reports made in recent RIPE Meetings to help it consider aspects around process/size of CoC Team, etc. * **

1 0

Draft Minutes - Code of Conduct TF: Third Call
by Antony Gollan 12 Nov '20

12 Nov '20

Dear TF members, Here's the draft minutes from our last call. Let me know if any corrections are needed. I've also made the archives public and linked them from the TF page here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/code-of-conduct-task-force Cheers Ant *** *Draft Minutes - Code of Conduct TF: Third**Call 18**November 2020, 1**7**:30-1**8**:30 (UTC+1)* *Present: *Denesh Bhabuta, Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda, Salam Yamout *Summary:*The TF discussed a request to contribute to the mailing list and agreed that people could access the archives and send comments to the list if they had input. A recent outcome from the GM alongside RIPE 81 linked Executive Board eligibility requirements to the RIPE Code of Conduct, and created a role for the Trusted Contacts/future CoC Team in making this determination. The TF agreed that this will need consideration and requested input from the RIPE NCC. A number of open questions were discussed in advance of updating the CoC document: People should not require HR or legal qualifications to conduct investigations, though the process should be developed with this specialist input; It will be important for a CoC process to include clear time frames where possible; While the CoC Team should do its utmost to protect the confidentiality of involved parties, it will be important to set expectations; The people conducting CoC investigations should not be the only ones making the final determination, a wider quorum should be required. The RIPE Chair should not be involved in this, as they would be needed as a “final arbiter” in the event of an appeal. The TF will request statistical information (only) from the Trusted Contacts on the number of complaints made at previous RIPE Meetings. *1.**Minutes* Minutes from the previous call were approved. The group agreed to include a summary with key decisions at the top of future minutes for public consumption. The group agreed. *Action: Include a summary at the start of future minutes.* *2.**Agenda* ** There were no changes to the agenda. *3.**Observers* Leo noted that he had received a request from someone interested in joining the mailing list to contribute. After discussing this with the RIPE Chair Team, they had agreed that there had been an open call for participation and membership of the TF was now closed. So, this wouldn’t be participation as a TF member. However, they could open up the mailing list if the TF wanted. He asked if there were other TFs that had had open lists during the discussion phase. Antony said he didn’t have a full list of how this had worked with past groups, but with the Accountability TF they had kept public archives with moderation in place. That let people see what was being discussed, and they could still send an email to the TF if they wanted. It was essentially one step below having an open list. There had been variations of this in the past, but it was generally common for TF archives to be public. Denesh said they needed to keep it to a relatively small group of people, otherwise it became “decision by committee.” He liked Antony’s suggestion, though it was important they solicit input from people. Brian said the Diversity TF had been as open as possible. He was torn between remaining a small/focused group and opening it up. He wasn’t sure what they had meant by “access to the mailing list so that they could contribute”, because the TF wasn’t doing everything on the list (they were having these calls, for example). So, there was more buy-in required than simply accessing the mailing list. Salam said she didn’t mind having them join the TF – the CoC mattered to everyone, so she wouldn’t object – provided the group didn’t get so big that it became inefficient. Leo said in his discussion with the RIPE Chair Team, they agreed that it was the responsibility of the RIPE Chair to decide who was on the TF. If they now said they would another TF member after the open call for volunteers, that took them back to the beginning. So, they needed to be careful about extending membership based on individual requests. Salam said in that case they documented this decision and made the archives public for anyone who would like to follow the discussion. *Action: RIPE NCC to make mailing list archives public. * *Action: **TF chair to respond to request to participate and let them know that while the ML won’t be opened to non-TF members, they can access the archives and are invited to send a mail to the list if they would like to make a contribution. * *4.**RIPE 81 Feedback * Brian noted the vote by the RIPE NCC General Meeting to adopt the recommendations of the Executive Board Election TF, one of which said that prospective board members must abide by the CoC and someone must okay this. He would need to review at the full GM minutes, but he understood this was about someone arbitrating whether potential board members were abiding by the CoC. He thought the Trusted Contacts weren’t qualified for this, and he believed the board had said the CoC TF should look at this. That meant the TF was now potentially enmeshed in this. Denesh said this went back to one of Leo’s questions from an earlier call – whether the CoC was meant to cover every activity within RIPE. They had agreed that it wasn’t so broad but this seemed to be pulling them in that direction again. Brian said that was his point. He thought the RIPE NCC membership had made mistake here, which would have unintended consequences. As a TF they would need to be mindful of this and be clear in terms of what they would be asking a future CoC Team to do. This was something they would need to have as an item for discussion with (potentially) Athina, the RIPE NCC Managing Director, the Chairman of the RIPE NCC Executive Board. He wasn’t sure exactly where this should sit, but they couldn’t just ignore this, as people might draw differing conclusions. Leo suggested they include this as an agenda item for a future meeting, and that they ask for an impact analysis from Athina that explained what this meant for them and what the TF would have to deliver. Salam said the idea was that violations of the CoC would need to be recorded on a list somewhere, and people running for the board of the RIPE NCC could be checked against this to determine whether they were eligible to stand. She agreed that this would affect them in terms of the CoC and they would need to deal with this. Brian said his point was that this was a RIPE NCC Executive Board problem that was being pushed to the CoC Team and he didn’t think it should be. Salam said they didn’t have to pick up the ball. But surely the CoC they would include a requirement that a list of violators be kept, obviously with some sort of process attached. If they had this, then that was where their task ended in relation to this requirement from the board. Leo said one of the questions he had put into the document was about record keeping and what they should/should not keep a record of (and when this information should expire). This was something they would need legal guidance from Athina on when she returned. Brian said he would share a copy of the Executive Board Election Task Force report which specified these recommendations in relation to the CoC Team. *Action: Athina to provide input on the decision by the RIPE NCC GM to reference the CoC in relation to potential EB candidates, as well as input on what kind of records a future CoC Team would need to keep (and for how long). * *5.**Review of Questions in Document * The group continued its review of the questions in the document Leo had provided. *Investigation – Professional Qualifications * ** Leo said the question here was whether the investigation should be managed by someone with relevant HR or legal qualifications. Salam asked if interested volunteers could be trained for this. Denesh agreed that interested people should be trained. However, there needed to be a process on how to conduct the investigation. This would need to be designed with the help of HR/legal people. This would allow anyone who had been trained to follow the process. There would need to be someone with professional qualifications on hand, though they wouldn’t necessarily have to manage the process. Leo said if they had strong expectations in terms of training and time at the meeting devoted to investigations, they were placing quite a burden on someone who might be attending with other responsibilities (chairing a session, giving a presentation, etc). This could lead to cases where the investigator was engaged in something else and was not able to find a resolution by the end of the week. He asked if it would be better to have a professional instead and have a community member make a decision on the outcome, or if they were happy asking someone to potentially sacrifice their participation at the meeting for this. Brian said other communities made sure to have a large enough pool of people so that one of them could drop everything if needed. If something came up it could be disruptive for the CoC Team, but in reality, chairing a session or attending a meeting was just a few hours. The other option was essentially to employ someone for a few weeks each year to avoid this problem, but he didn’t like this approach personally. Salam supported the first option Brian had suggested. Some people would be interested in volunteering, and if they had a large enough pool this should be fine. The process could establish how people were selected from the pool (and how many). They would need training to join the pool. During the investigation they would have HR and legal support if needed. Sometimes these volunteers would have to sacrifice part of their meeting, but that was how it worked. She thought it was important for the community to take care of itself and have the processes to deal with its own problems – it was part of their culture. Leo said he took this as rejecting a requirement that the person leading the investigation have HR/legal qualifications. However, they would want strong involvement in the design of the investigation process from people with these qualifications. *Investigation – Schedule* Leo asked what a reasonable time frame was – both from the perspective of those conducting the investigation and of those who made a report. One thing he noticed was that the DNS WG was holding monthly online events, there were mailing lists that went on all the time, and formal RIPE Meetings twice per year. The scope of their charter was all RIPE activities – which meant mailing lists, intersessional work and RIPE Meetings. So, when they looked at scheduling, they would need to consider all of these things. He thought they needed some borders in terms of minimum/maximum time frames. Brian said expectations should be able to be set, both for the victim and the alleged perpetrator. It was important that this was in there. Leo said they didn’t need to come up with an answer immediately, but they did need to let people know what to expect – when they could expect a resolution to be found, when they could expect to be contacted, etc. Much of this would be guided by the process; a more complex process would take longer and vice versa. Brian said it would be fair to expect most of the investigation to be done while people were physically/virtually at the event. If the issue occurred during the Friday lunch time at a RIPE Meeting, then obviously they would need to be realistic. However, they couldn’t leave this for too long, because memories faded, and stories changed. Leo said the other thing to keep in mind was that the RIPE Chair Team had talked about hybrid meetings with people both at the meeting venue and elsewhere. And with virtual meetings they had people in different time zones. When they built this process, they needed be mindful that no one participating at 1am was at their best. Brian said the conventions he was involved with used a “follow the sun” model as much as possible. If they cast a wide net and volunteers didn’t necessarily have to be present at the meeting, this could be a positive thing. Salam said she was imagining an “uber” model – where people in the pool grabbed an issue and assumed responsibility for it. Salam asked if they had a pool of people for the CoC Team, would they have to disclose their names and phone numbers? And if so, would this be GDPR compliant? Brian said he assumed they would list the names of the CoC Team – and the RIPE NCC could then arrange some method of communication that would largely be around email or voice communications and wouldn’t require personal contact information to be listed. Salam clarified that she was thinking in terms of the parties involved in the report. Antony said he thought Legal did have some GDPR concerns here. Athina would likely have more to share on this in any case. *Investigation – Confidentiality* ** Leo asked if it was possible to guarantee confidentiality to reporters. Brian said the CoC Team would have to undertake to ensure this, but there was no legal sanction and realistically there was only so much of a guarantee they could offer. Denesh said they could address this in the wording – they could say they would do their utmost to ensure confidentiality without going so far as to explicitly guarantee it. Leo said past training he’d done as a manager had said they couldn’t promise people they would ensure confidentiality (e.g. “doing their best” vs “guaranteeing”). They couldn’t promise this because it could potentially compromise an investigation. Denesh said they also couldn’t control people outside of the investigation, there could be rumours, etc. They could only promise to do their utmost to treat information in a confidential manner. Brian said that would have to be a requirement to join the CoC Team – they would have to undertake to ensure confidentiality. There might be people they would have to speak with during their investigation, but in an ideal process they would check with the relevant parties first. This could be a request for permission or otherwise more in terms of a notification that they would be speaking with others. The CoC Team violating the confidentiality of involved parties in this context would essentially itself be a violation of the CoC. Salam noted that to a certain extent, people should be aware that rumours were inevitable if they broke the community’s norms. These social repercussions were partly why they should behave well. Brian said rumours already existed without a CoC; they just needed to ensure they didn’t come from this process or those entrusted to follow it. Leo said they would need advice on how to word statements involving confidentiality. ** *Decision Making* Leo said this question was about the separation of duties. Did they want the same person to be both the investigator and the decider – or should these be different people? Brian said he wondered if they could steal best practices from other communities here. He thought the person investigating should at least not be the only one making the decision, but he would need to look at other examples in more detail. He thought the decision should at least not only be made by those doing the investigation. Leo said this was good, as it had affected the schedule as well. If they said there should be some separation, then they needed to account for that in the schedule. And they would need to account for that in terms of the people involved, so it was giving them some borders in terms of what they were working on. Salam suggested they could have at least two people conducting the investigation with a third party (such as the RIPE Chair) helping to making the decision. Leo said his concern was that they would probably need the RIPE Chair to fill an appeal role. If the RIPE Chair was involved in the initial decision, then they would have to create a separate appeal body. Brian said the WG chairs been through this with an appeal in the PDP recently. They had said the RIPE Chair needed to remain separate in case they needed to weigh as a “final arbiter”. He didn’t think this third party needed to be a designated person. Using hypothetical numbers, if there was a CoC Team with six people, perhaps two of them did the investigation and no fewer than four or five made the decision. This would probably also require some participation from the RIPE NCC’s Legal Department. He thought it shouldn’t be the same person making all of these decisions. Leo said the word he was hearing was quorum. Brian agreed. The group stopped before “Record Keeping” in the document. * 6. AOB* ** Brian said it would be nice to have some statistical information about reports made to the CoC Team across recent RIPE Meetings. *Action: RIPE NCC to request statistical information from the CoC Team on reports made in recent RIPE Meetings. * The TF agreed to reschedule the next call for Wednesday, 18 November at 17:30 (CET/UTC+1). * 7. Review Actions* ** *Action: Include a summary at the start of future minutes.* ** *Action: RIPE NCC to make mailing list archives public. * *Action: **TF chair to respond to request to participate and let them know that while the ML won’t be opened to non-TF members, they can access the archives and are invited to send a mail to the list if they would like to make a contribution. * ** *Action: Athina to provide input on the decision by the RIPE NCC GM to reference the CoC in relation to potential EB candidates, as well as input on what kind of records a future CoC Team would need to keep (and for how long). * ** *Action: RIPE NCC to request statistical information (only) from the Trusted Contacts on reports made in recent RIPE Meetings to help it consider aspects around process/size of CoC Team, etc. * **

1 0

Code of Conduct Task Force
by Jordi Palet Martínez 12 Nov '20

12 Nov '20

Hi all, I will like to subscribe to the COC Task Force in order to contribute to the work. I've been working in other regions in a similar task, by means of a policy proposal, and I think I can contribute with many points. I looked into the web page and it is not clear how to ... Regards, Jordi @jordipalet ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

3 10

RIPE NCC Elections TF Report
by Brian Nisbet 08 Nov '20

08 Nov '20

Folks, As discussed, the report is here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2020/ripe-ncc… The specific amendments are here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2020/proposed… And the resolution passed the GM vote, without any clarity on actual implementation. As Salam very wisely said, we don't have to pick up the ball, but we need to acknowledge the ball exists. 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(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

3 2

CoC TF - Rescheduled Meeting
by Antony Gollan 06 Nov '20

06 Nov '20

Dear TF members, I think you will have received an invitation for our rescheduled call. Just in case, here's the link. Cheers Ant On 06/11/2020 17:58, agollan(a)ripe.net wrote: > > > CoC TF - Rescheduled Meeting > > /When/ > Wed 18 Nov 2020 17:30 – 18:30 Central European Time - Amsterdam > /Where/ > https://ripe.zoom.us/j/96116362771?pwd=RUtJZG01V1gvYnh1VU9yYW1sZVp4UT09(map <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fripe.zoom.us%2Fj%2F96116362771%3…>) > /Who/ > > • > agollan(a)ripe.net- organiser > > Meeting Account 4 is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. > > Join Zoom Meeting > https://ripe.zoom.us/j/96116362771?pwd=RUtJZG01V1gvYnh1VU9yYW1sZVp4UT09 > <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fripe.zoom.us%2Fj%2F96116362771%3…> > > Meeting ID: 961 1636 2771 Passcode: 076198 One tap mobile > +16465588656,,96116362771#,,,,,,0#,,076198# US (New York) > +13017158592,,96116362771#,,,,,,0#,,076198# US (Washington D.C) > > Dial by your location +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US > (Washington D.C) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 669 900 9128 US (San > Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) Meeting > ID: 961 1636 2771 Passcode: 076198 Find your local number: > https://ripe.zoom.us/u/ac28u78L1g > <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fripe.zoom.us%2Fu%2Fac28u78L1g&sa…> > > Join by SIP 96116362771(a)zoomcrc.com <mailto:96116362771@zoomcrc.com> > > Join by H.323 162.255.37.11 (US West) 162.255.36.11 (US East) > 115.114.131.7 (India Mumbai) 115.114.115.7 (India Hyderabad) > 213.19.144.110 (Amsterdam Netherlands) 213.244.140.110 (Germany) > 103.122.166.55 (Australia) 149.137.40.110 (Singapore) 64.211.144.160 > (Brazil) 69.174.57.160 (Canada) 207.226.132.110 (Japan) Meeting ID: > 961 1636 2771 Passcode: 076198 >

1 0

Early draft agenda for next week's call
by Leo Vegoda 29 Oct '20

29 Oct '20

Dear TF, I hope you are all having a great RIPE 81. We have a meeting scheduled for Friday next week. I am sharing an early draft agenda for next week's meeting and welcome suggestions for improvements to it on the list or in private e-mail. Kind regards, Leo Title Who What Time Outcome Minutes TF Review the draft minutes of the previous meeting. Agree any changes. Finalize. 5 mins Minutes Agenda TF Review agenda and adjust as needed. 5 mins Agenda Observers All Jordi has requested to join the mailing list so he can contribute. TF membership was decided by Mirjam and Niall after an open call for participation. - What has the RIPE NCC observed in other TFs? - Can the list be opened to non-member observers in a constructive way and if so, what process should be applied? 10 mins Decision RIPE 81 All Share any input to TF members and the RIPE NCC from RIPE81, or thoughts arising from the meeting. 10 mins Awareness Questions All Resume discussion of questions document <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fbJaJVaOPlCjr40kVMvWkV2AhRPFRrCeJJNrgAI…> and decide: - What do we want to keep? - What do we want to adjust? - What do we need to add? 20 mins Direction AOB - Any other business 5 mins - Actions NCC Review actions agreed during the meeting 5 mins Action list

1 0

Recurring CoC TF Meeting
by Antony Gollan 26 Oct '20

26 Oct '20

Dear TF members, I think you should receive a separate invite to a recurring CoC TF Meeting - starting on Friday 6 Nov (15:30-16:30 UTC) and repeating every two weeks. I've also included the Zoom link below for reference. Cheers Ant Recurring CoC TF Meeting /When/ Fri 6 Nov 2020 16:30 – 17:30 Central European Time - Amsterdam /Where/ https://ripe.zoom.us/j/97132502720(map <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fripe.zoom.us%2Fj%2F97132502720&s…>) /Who/ • agollan(a)ripe.net - organiser • afragkou(a)ripe.net Meeting Account 4 is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Join Zoom Meeting https://ripe.zoom.us/j/97132502720 <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fripe.zoom.us%2Fj%2F97132502720&s…> Meeting ID: 971 3250 2720 One tap mobile +13126266799,,97132502720# US (Chicago) +16465588656,,97132502720# US (New York) Dial by your location +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) Meeting ID: 971 3250 2720 Find your local number: https://ripe.zoom.us/u/abX36VO2wD <https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fripe.zoom.us%2Fu%2FabX36VO2wD&sa…> Join by SIP 97132502720(a)zoomcrc.com <mailto:97132502720@zoomcrc.com> Join by H.323 162.255.37.11 (US West) 162.255.36.11 (US East) 115.114.131.7 (India Mumbai) 115.114.115.7 (India Hyderabad) 213.19.144.110 (Amsterdam Netherlands) 213.244.140.110 (Germany) 103.122.166.55 (Australia) 149.137.40.110 (Singapore) 64.211.144.160 (Brazil) 69.174.57.160 (Canada) 207.226.132.110 (Japan) Meeting ID: 971 3250 2720

2 2

Draft Minutes - Code of Conduct TF: Second Call
by Antony Gollan 26 Oct '20

26 Oct '20

Dear TF members, Here are the minutes from our second call. Let me know any changes/corrections. Cheers Ant * * **** * *Draft Minutes - Code of Conduct TF: **Second**Call **19**October 2020, 1**7**:00-1**8**:00 (UTC+2)* *Present: *Denesh Bhabuta, Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda, Salam Yamout *1.**Minutes/Agenda* The draft minutes from the last call were accepted. The group agreed to record calls from now on. There were no changes to the agenda. *2.**Regular meeting schedule* Leo asked if they should aim for a regular meeting every two weeks. Brian said by now it was clear they wouldn’t have anything substantial ready in time for RIPE 81. He supported meeting every two weeks, provided this worked with their updated time frame. Leo said the reason it was important to have regular meetings was that they had three work items: the updated CoC itself, a document about selection of the CoC Team, and a document outlining procedures. This could take a few months, and having some predictability was definitely an advantage. *Action:*Antony to share a poll with the group to agree on a regular bi-weekly meeting. *3.**Questions * The group ran through the questions document that Leo had put together: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fbJaJVaOPlCjr40kVMvWkV2AhRPFRrCeJJNrgAI… <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fbJaJVaOPlCjr40kVMvWkV2AhRPFRrCeJJNrgAI…> *Introduction* Antony asked if some of the parts in the introduction about how the CoC applied to could be moved to the “Scope” section later in the document. Brian said he liked having this in the introduction - he wanted them to make it clear that: “Yes, this definitely applies to you.” Denesh said the W3C’s CoC had a glossary at the end. One thing that struck him from looking at the RIPE community’s draft was that they talked about “participants” but didn’t define what that was. They also didn’t consider the people running the event. *In Scope* Leo said he’d asked about people who might be engaged to run the meeting. This made sense to him, as it was the CoC for “RIPE” rather than “RIPE Meetings”. So, RIPE NCC staff should be covered, as the purpose of the RIPE NCC was to help RIPE do its job. Brian said he agreed with this, but he was also concerned that trying to force the RIPE NCC as a legal entity/employer of staff to do something might lead to adoption problems. Antony said he’d checked this with their HR department when putting together the impact analysis on the draft v3.0. They hadn’t raised any concerns – and said they would link the RIPE NCC’s internal staff CoC to the RIPE community’s. *Protected People* Leo explained that the list started with people who were almost certainly covered (e.g. RIPE Meeting attendees) and that this became less clear as you went down the list. The idea was to identify where the boundary was. For example, if a person attended a RIPE DNS session and a DNS OARC session, he thought they shouldn’t be bound by the RIPE CoC in the latter venue, as they didn’t bring any “RIPEness” with them. Antony asked if someone could show a pattern of abuse by a someone in another venue – would the CoC Team not take this into account? Brian said this was one of the biggest issues with CoCs that he’d come across. The general feeling was that evidence could be presented (“Person X did something terrible at Meeting Y”) and this was certainly relevant information. But they couldn’t say their CoC applied to people at a different meeting, so the answer was both yes and no. He thought this was out of scope – they couldn’t turn around and say to that their CoC applied to other events because some of the attendees had been to a RIPE Meeting in the past. What they could do was try to encourage communication. Another aspect was that this approach led to issues around defamation and things of that sort. Denesh agreed. Leo said one of the examples was someone attending a different event in the same venue. Were they protected by the RIPE CoC because the offending person was a registered RIPE Meeting attendee? Denesh asked if this came down to whether the other person complained (as the offender would be wearing a RIPE Meeting badge). If not, it would be very difficult to prove. Brian said he wouldn’t necessarily see this as something that fell under their CoC. If someone reported that an attendee had done something, then it came back to the hotel and it was a grey area. All of the CoCs he’d seen only talked about people at the event – they didn’t extend enforcement to these things. If someone punched someone outside a RIPE event, they might expect some repercussions from that, even if they didn’t come from the CoC team. Denesh said this was similar to the way schools could receive complaints when people were in uniform and got into trouble outside of school – students might be suspended or punished on that basis. He wondered if this might be similar to someone outside the event wearing a RIPE Meeting badge. Leo said now they were talking more in terms of protecting the reputation of RIPE as an organisation, which was a different dimension. Antony asked if it could be problematic to go down that route – they might have someone criticising RIPE on a mailing list for not supporting a policy proposal, for example. Brain agreed and said this should be out of scope. This was where people talked about “rules lawyering” a CoC. They might also hit a situation where someone did something to someone and the RIPE NCC had to take their badge away because the hotel had told them they were no longer welcome in the venue. This was separate from the CoC; they shouldn’t try to protect the world. *Communication Protection to Non-Participants* Leo asked how they communicated that people were protected so they knew they could make a complaint and who they should make it to. Antony said the RIPE NCC could probably handle this in terms of venue staff. Denesh said at UKNOF, if sponsors wanted to run their own events with their name attached, they had to agree to abide by their code of conduct. This seemed like more of a contractual issue on the RIPE NCC’s side. Brian said he wouldn’t expect to see physical signs up, as this would be more for community members in terms of something they agreed to when signing up. *Agreement on the Code of Conduct* Leo asked about “tourists” – people who didn’t register for the meeting but were nevertheless on the periphery of the event to network with people. He personally thought this was too difficult, but he had included it so they could find the boundary in terms of the scope. Denesh asked how the RIPE NCC was policing people in the venue without badges. Antony said he was pretty sure they’d used venue security to check badges since their last meeting in Amsterdam. In the past they had relied on staff to spot people. People definitely needed a badge to be in the meeting space. Brian said this seemed very straightforward – if someone was at the meeting without a badge, they could be asked to leave on that basis. Antony asked if Leo was thinking in terms of people on the boundaries of the meeting space. Brian said they allowed that as a courtesy and so it was straightforward to ask these people to leave. Where this might become more interesting was if someone had bought a +1 ticket for the RIPE Dinner. He suggested they could include something which said that all people attending the dinner agreed to adhere to the CoC, and the person who bought the ticket was responsible for their +1 in this respect. Salam agreed with Brian and said they didn’t need to worry too much about tourists. The purpose of the CoC was to bind the RIPE community together and they needed to keep that in mind. This was the border in her opinion – she was not overly concerned with exceptions or edge cases. *Understanding* Leo referenced the feedback that people who were on the spectrum might have difficulties understanding the CoC. He noted that in the CoC it said they didn’t need to tell people what it meant to be a decent person. He asked if they did in fact need to tell people what was decent behaviour, or whether they should double down and say that they didn’t need to do this. Denesh said he liked the W3C CoC as it explained expected behaviour and what they didn’t like, but he thought it might be worth giving some examples. Salam said she thought they could assume that people were good and explain their values, rather than catering for the exception. Brian said he really liked the expected behaviour part in the W3C document but noted that it was very long. He suggested maybe this was something to look at a future update to the CoC. Salam said she didn’t see how they could describe what decent behaviour was, except by stating what their values were in the CoC. Denesh said things like that could always be updated. He thought clarification was a good thing, but suggested this could go into an appendix. At the end of the day, some people did want guidance, but this shouldn’t be prescriptive. Salam asked if they should have FAQs. One of these could be: “What is decent behaviour?” Leo said he liked the idea of having this information separate, because it meant they could make a readable document and people who wanted the extra detail could find it. *Reporting an Incident* Leo asked what mechanisms should be available to submit a report. Brian said he preferred in-person and email, and possibly web form. Instant messaging was complicated – you would need to have an official account and someone to staff it. He’d seen it happen where people ran to Twitter to report an incident; as a team they had to ask people to use an official format for reasons to do with reporting, logging, confidentiality, etc. *Action: *Athina to provide input on where the legal boundaries are regarding reporting incidents and what is not acceptable/what is preferred. *Mediation* Leo noted the v3.0 document talked about investigations and decisions rather than what the RIPE community was meant to be about – bringing people together to reach consensus. Someone might say something rude and this could result in a report to the CoC Team. Hopefully, this would lead to a discussion and an apology – and hopefully an agreement for the future. He suspected the authors of the last version had this in mind, but it wasn’t documented. He asked if the group wanted to formally include this. Brian said the one piece they needed to avoid was a situation where a potential abuser had more access to the person they abused. While it was good to have mediation as an option, it was important that it couldn’t be used to slow things down or force the victim to face their abuser. Salam said that by the time she made a report, it would be because she wanted the other person gone. She wouldn’t want to have to deal with them after making a report and wouldn’t want to be reminded of how she felt about that person. Not all reports would result in sanctions, but she wouldn’t want it to put her across from her aggressor. Leo said that what he was hearing was that they didn’t need to make this compulsory, but it might be good to have it as an option and note that it would need to be handled with some delicacy. Brian agreed with Salam’s point. The ideal situation was that if someone did something bad, it was pointed out to them, they apologised, and everyone moved on. Some level of mediation was good, but it was important that no one was forced into a situation they didn’t want. *Jurisdiction* [Skipped until Athina could be on the call]. *Investigation – professional qualifications* Leo asked if the CoC team would be qualified to perform investigations. And when they completed their investigation – who made the decision – should it be the same group or should there be some separation? He asked if the group would prefer a RIPE NCC staffer with a legal or HR background to drive this. Salam asked if RIPE had some kind of Ombudsman. Antony said they had the Trusted Contacts – one RIPE NCC staff member and one community member. It had been the same two people for some time now, and they’d both done external training on how to handle reports. This training was more in terms of how to receive a report and support someone in distress rather than how to conduct an investigation. Leo said he was thinking if they wanted the investigation to be run by someone from the community or if they wanted this to be done by the RIPE NCC’s HR or Legal department. This was because they would be approaching this as professionals who went through all of the relevant development and training. This would be more of a challenge if they used volunteers, who would not be able to maintain the same degree of training/skills over time. The way he read v3.0, it sounded like the Trusted Contacts or the CoC Team who would be leading the investigation and making a decision at the end. Brian said this was what they had intended, because this was the model that was employed in other communities. Because RIPE had a secretariat and money, perhaps it was an option to have someone with a professional background in this role. *4.**Review Actions* ** Leo ran through the actions and proposed a few additional ones based on the group’s discussion. ** - RIPE NCC to share a poll with the group to agree on a regular bi-weekly meeting. ** - Athina to provide input on where the legal boundaries are regarding reporting incidents and what is not acceptable/what is preferred. - Add some model behaviours to a web page or an appendix. - Include wording in the updated document that mediation is an option but not mandatory. - TF members to review the draft document and add comments.

3 4

Draft update for RIPE 81
by Leo Vegoda 24 Oct '20

24 Oct '20

Dear TF, As promised earlier today, here are the slides I have drafted for the 10 minute update slot we have scheduled during the Community Plenary at RIPE 81. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1MAtik8VAzz4dy7I6CkDvkMyFOs-QXolfuPA… I shared it with the e-mail addresses I have for you. Please let me know if you'd like me to share them with different addresses. Please let me know if you want to change the photo I have used to identify you on slide 3 and whether we should have affiliations listed by our names. I have added a few speaker notes. Please feel free to comment on these, too. Kind regards, Leo

1 1

Status update to RIPE List
by Leo Vegoda 24 Oct '20

24 Oct '20

Dear TF, Mirjam suggested that we send a status update to the RIPE List. I think this is a good idea as it is not always possible for everyone to attend every session and it is better to over communicate than under communicate. I have drafted an update based on the slide deck we are developing. I have shared it as a Google Document and would welcome your thoughts on how to improve it. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uMozCrxKyBNIAWSe6QDAvA8WaKPk50DHlaaW0dx… I'd like to send the update to the RIPE List towards the start of next week before people become fully engaged in the meeting. Kind regards, Leo

2 2

Re: [coc-tf] Status Update on CoC TF to ripe-list@ripe.net - Invitation to edit
by Antony Gollan 23 Oct '20

23 Oct '20

Hi Leo, Looks good to me, and I like Brian's suggestion as well. Cheers Ant On 23/10/2020 10:28, Brian Nisbet wrote: > Mostly looks great, and wasn't sure to just add to the doc or email, > decided to email. 🙂 > > Given there's been nothing for a while on this, is it worth just > reminding people of the existing CoC? > > "Of course, until then the existing RIPE Code of Conduct is still in > effect and the relevant documents can be found here: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-o… > <https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-o…> and > here: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/ripe-mailing-list-ripe-forum-code-of-… > <https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/ripe-mailing-list-ripe-forum-code-of-…>" > > ? > > 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(a)heanet.ie www.heanet.ie > > Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Leo Vegoda (via Google Docs) <drive-shares-noreply(a)google.com> > *Sent:* Thursday 22 October 2020 17:17 > *To:* Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie> > *Cc:* afragkou(a)ripe.net <afragkou(a)ripe.net>; agollan(a)ripe.net > <agollan(a)ripe.net>; dbhabuta(a)gmail.com <dbhabuta(a)gmail.com>; > niall.oreilly(a)ucd.ie <niall.oreilly(a)ucd.ie>; salamyamout(a)gmail.com > <salamyamout(a)gmail.com> > *Subject:* Status Update on CoC TF to ripe-list(a)ripe.net - Invitation to > edit > > CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the > organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you > recognise the sender and know the content is safe. > > leo(a)vegoda.org <mailto:leo@vegoda.org> has invited you to *edit* the > following document: > Status Update on CoC TF to ripe-list(a)ripe.net > <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.goog…> > > Unknown profile photoThis is a draft status update on the CoC TF to send > to the RIPE List. I'm sending an accompanying message with details to > the CoC TF list. > Open in Docs > <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.goog…> > leo(a)vegoda.org <mailto:leo@vegoda.org> is outside your organisation. > > > > > > > > > > > Google Docs: Create and edit documents online. > Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA > You have received this email because leo(a)vegoda.org > <mailto:leo@vegoda.org> shared a document with you from Google Docs. > Logo for Google Docs > <https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdrive.goog…> > >

1 0

Poll for Regular Call
by Antony Gollan 20 Oct '20

20 Oct '20

Dear TF members, Here's a poll to find a timeslot for a regular call (Starting 2 Nov and recurring every two weeks). Salam has said Mondays are generally better for her, so that might be one to aim for if possible. Note: this time around the timezone is UTC(+0) rather than Amsterdam time/CEST: https://doodle.com/poll/vfzwsg6ggc7pkssf Cheers Ant

1 0

Draft agenda for 2nd Call
by Leo Vegoda 19 Oct '20

19 Oct '20

Hi, I sent a draft agenda for tomorrow's call but I don't think it made it through to the list, so here it is under separate cover. Regards, Leo Title Who What Time Outcome Minutes TF Review the draft minutes of the previous meeting. Agree any changes. Finalize. 5 mins Minutes Agenda TF Review agenda and adjust as needed. 5 mins Agenda Schedule All Agree a regular meeting schedule. 10 mins Schedule Questions All Discuss questions document <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fbJaJVaOPlCjr40kVMvWkV2AhRPFRrCeJJNrgAI…> and decide: - What do we want to keep? - What do we want to adjust? - What do we need to add? 30 mins Direction AOB - Any other business 5 mins - Actions NCC Review actions agreed during the meeting 5 mins Actions list

1 0

Scheduling Second TF Call: Poll
by Antony Gollan 18 Oct '20

18 Oct '20

Dear TF members, I've created a poll to find a time for our second call. Times are in CEST (UTC+2): https://doodle.com/poll/9vprkdrt5igx6axt Cheers Ant

5 11

Details for Second Call
by Antony Gollan 16 Oct '20

16 Oct '20

Dear TF members, Here's the link for our second call on Monday, 19 October (at 17:00 CEST/UTC+2): https://ripe.zoom.us/j/91816060876 Cheers Ant *** Description: Meeting Account 4 is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Join Zoom Meeting https://ripe.zoom.us/j/91816060876 Meeting ID: 918 1606 0876 One tap mobile +16465588656,,91816060876# US (New York) +13017158592,,91816060876# US (Germantown) Dial by your location +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) Meeting ID: 918 1606 0876 Find your local number: https://ripe.zoom.us/u/ab1fdV9Iiq Join by SIP 91816060876(a)zoomcrc.com Join by H.323 162.255.37.11 (US West) 162.255.36.11 (US East) 115.114.131.7 (India Mumbai) 115.114.115.7 (India Hyderabad) 213.19.144.110 (Amsterdam Netherlands) 213.244.140.110 (Germany) 103.122.166.55 (Australia) 149.137.40.110 (Singapore) 64.211.144.160 (Brazil) 69.174.57.160 (Canada) 207.226.132.110 (Japan) Meeting ID: 918 1606 0876

1 0

Can non-members contact us through the mailing list?
by Leo Vegoda 15 Oct '20

15 Oct '20

Hi Antony, The TF web page at https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/code-of-conduct-task-force lists the e-mail address for our mailing list. Can non-members post directly to the list or are their posts moderated? Thanks, Leo

2 2

Draft Minutes - Code of Conduct TF: First Call
by Antony Gollan 14 Oct '20

14 Oct '20

Dear TF members, Here are the draft minutes from our first call. Let me know if any corrections are needed. Cheers Ant * * *Draft Minutes - Code of Conduct TF: First Call 1 October 2020, 16:00-17:00 (UTC+2)* *Present: *Denesh Bhabuta, Athina Fragkouli, Antony Gollan, Brian Nisbet, Leo Vegoda *1. Introductions* Leo asked if the session could be recorded. As any people joining the call would not have given advance permission, it was agreed that this could be clarified ahead of the next call if recordings were required. Antony noted that he was generally able to produce detailed minutes. There was a round of introductions: Leo Vegoda, said he had a long background in the industry, starting with the RIPE NCC before moving to ICANN, and he was currently working for Peering DB. He had volunteered to join the task force mostly due to his personal view that people should be treated fairly. However, he also had a more self-interested motive – he thought that if RIPE was unable to ensure it provided an acceptable environment for participants, it would undermine the sustainability of the community. Brian Nisbet, said he had worked at HEAnet (the Irish NREN) for the past 19-years, and he had been one of the voices pushing for a CoC in the RIPE community. As part of this, he had been part of the Diversity TF. Denesh said he’d been in the industry since the 90s, and throughout that time, he had been of the opinion that there needed to be more equality in the industry. Of course, people today got where they were due to the help of others in the industry – but over time it seems like those opportunities had disappeared, and nowadays it seemed like there might even be less diversity. He saw the CoC and the Diversity TF as ongoing efforts – but he wanted to see something that helped people to feel included, which was his motivation for joining the TF. Athina said she was Chief Legal Officer at the RIPE NCC. She had been with the company for 11 years. A big part of her job was to make sure that the RIPE community and the RIPE NCC were strong, so that the wider self-regulatory system could help to defend itself externally against the likes of governments or national authorities that might question its legitimacy. As part of her work in the RIPE Accountability TF, she felt that a diverse community was a strong community, and it was important that people felt included and able to express themselves. Part of this meant a strong code of conduct for the community. Antony said he’d been with the RIPE NCC for eight years, first as a Communications Officer and currently as Acting Communications Manager. He said a big part of his work in the community, including on the Accountability TF, had been in terms of his writing background – helping to explain things clearly – and this was how he was approaching the CoC TF. *2. Context* **Athina noted that the RIPE NCC had only really gotten started with the TF in an official sense since their impact analysis had been published. While some staff members had participated in the Diversity TF, it was important to note that they had done so in an individual capacity. Brian gave some of the backstory. Around the time of the RIPE 67 in Athens, the RIPE Chair and the RIPE NCC Managing Director had started moving on an initial code of conduct – which was a relatively light “aspirational” statement. The Diversity TF formed later (at RIPE 74) and while they weren’t formed specifically to create a CoC, they thought this was something that could be improved on. They managed to produce a draft document that was heavily drawn from the CoC used by the Python community. However, there was a lot of pushback in terms of the RIPE NCC’s impact analysis and from the community. So Hans Petter eventually proposed that the document be split into three separate parts, as they were now doing via the CoC TF. He thought their task now was to get this across the line, and to make iterations for the most part. He thought was part of the ebbs and flows of getting a CoC in place.* * *3. Review scope of work* Leo asked if the group thought the TF needed to heavily review the document or if it just needed a bit of spit and polish. Denesh said the last time he'd looked over the MLs, from memory he thought there was a bit to do with the "crossing the T's and dotting the Is." Antony said from his review, most of the community’s concerns were really about enforcement and the proposed CoC Team itself. Brian said there were people for whom the RIPE community was very important – they met twice each year and their old friends/frenemies, etc. and among some of those people there was a fear that they could do something that could cost them their place in the community or have career implications. They felt that the idea that this could happen on the basis of something they didn’t understand was wrong. He added that people might have differing ideas regarding what constituted ‘robust discussion’ and were concerned they might be censored. Athina said RIPE was a community that was made up of diverse cultures – even within Europe – and some people were worried that the CoC could be used to shut down voices with differing opinions. She added that this was a challenge with codes of conduct in general. Denesh said Brian said much of this did seem to be about ‘white CIS males’ being concerned that they would be kicked-out, not understanding that people would only be kicked out at the end of a very long road. He asked if they were asking the younger generation what they thought about the meeting – perhaps they should be seeking wider feedback. In addition to that, they were no longer doing physical meetings, and increased virtual aspects made this much wider than their service region. Leo tried to summarise: he was thinking there was pushback from people who were concerned they might be accused of unacceptable behaviour and would be punished in ways that affected their career. When he read through this, he saw a mismatch between what the RIPE community was trying to achieve, and what the draft CoC said. The RIPE Meeting was about consensus, but he didn't see anything in there about having some kind of mediation or an ombudsman to attempt some form of mediation. If this was like the wider legal system, the police wouldn't be the ones responsible convicting the person they capture, but all of this seemed to be bundled together in the document. He also thought there were implementation details to look at in terms of what the RIPE NCC could do to educate people. Brian agreed on the first part – separation of processes was the right approach for the community. The one thing that he would say was that if they talked about a five-day RIPE Meeting, they needed to be very careful about something like an ombudsman process. People kept comparing the CoC to a legal process, but it wasn't. In the case of a RIPE Meeting, it was a five-day event – and while a formal investigation was being conducted, the person would remain at the meeting. He added that at various points he’d seen people try to engage with the RIPE Meeting, only to hit a wall and walk away, which was what had happened with a member of the Diversity TF. Athina said she wanted to speak about implementation. Indeed, they didn't need a CoC for criminal matters. However, they needed something that could allow for immediate action - if someone was misbehaving on Monday, they might need to be gone by Tuesday. One concern she noted was that the CoC TF volunteers would not be professionals. She agreed with Leo's point about the need for investigation, but what about cases where actions needed to be taken immediately? Antony asked if the TF might want to align on some pointed questions that they wanted to ask the community sooner rather than later (ahead of the document being published). He also highlighted that presenting fresh text to the community (even if the underlying meaning was the same) might have some benefit – as it would show that this was not going to be the exact same draft simply split into three. Leo said he could be happy to volunteer to propose a structure and circulate that on the list – they could always squish things back down. Brian said he could see Antony’s point, but he thought a lot of the existing text was good and he didn't think they should re-draft. He supported the idea of restructuring the document. Denesh agreed with Leo and Brian. Leo said he would like to place an action on the RIPE NCC to examine what an implementation plan might look like. Antony said he did want to caution that when Leo talked about “educating people” it was important to keep in mind what was realistic. There was plenty they could do to make the CoC more visible, and could look at developing materials etc. However, to a certain extent a lot of this would also depend on how willing people were to engage with the topic. Leo said at ICANN they had to go through some mandatory training by watching a video and interacting with a quiz – that was somewhat like what he was imagining. Athina said that for now they could go away and put together some ideas and options around how they imagined the implementation might look. She added that from a legal/enforcement point of view, it was more straightforward to frame things in terms of “Do not”. Brain thanked Leo for adding some structure to this and for proposing the next steps. He noted that they now had four weeks to develop something. Leo said he would also work with Antony to schedule the next meeting and work with him to add/compress sections and text. Brian noted that he would not be available for a call next week, but would try to make whatever date they agreed on the week after that.

1 0

Structured set of questions
by Leo Vegoda 13 Oct '20

13 Oct '20

Dear TF, At our meeting earlier today we discussed how to move forward and I took an action to draft a document structure with a large number of sections and lots of questions. The goal of the document is to help us work out where we need to add more detail, so that we can separate policy from process. I have drafted the document structure and tried to keep questions at the "what" level for the time being, rather than move on to "how" questions. There are a couple of questions that sit on the border but the intention there is to inform the answers to other questions. I've pasted the draft here but would appreciate it if the RIPE NCC could place this in a shared document that can be commented on. That way we can work out where we are in agreement and pull out the areas where additional work is required. We agreed not to meet next week but to try and schedule something between 5 and 9 October. Kind regards, Leo RIPE Code of Conduct v4.0 (questions for draft) This document presents a detailed document structure. The intention is that each section has as few questions as possible. By breaking out the structure to the maximum level of detail we can identify what we want to keep, where we want to compress sections together, and what we want the language to say. Introduction Do we need any substantive changes to the Introduction or Why We Need a Code of Conduct sections of v3.0? PrinciplesAre the principles outlined in v3.0 appropriate or do they require changes?In Scope Which of the following are not in-scope? - RIPE Meeting sessions and scheduled social events - Intersessional RIPE works, such as the DNS-WG Zoom sessions - RIPE mailing lists - RIPE branded messaging or chat functionality - Independently operated bur RIPE adjacent messaging or chat functionality - RIPE Mailing Lists - Unofficial social events organized by RIPE Meeting attendees or their employers - Other events produced by the RIPE NCC, like member lunches - Non-RIPE events, or lists, for which the RIPE NCC is the secretariat - Events produced, or lists hosted, by other organizations but attended by people holding a RIPE office, like WG Chair - Events produced, or lists hosted, by other organizations but attended by people who participate in RIPE but do not hold any official office Protected People Which of the following are not protected? - RIPE Meeting attendees on location - People participating over the Internet (including PSTN connections) - RIPE NCC staff, including temporary contractors - Meeting venue staff, including venues of social events - People attending other events in the same venue Communicating Protection to Non-Participants Which of the following should be used to communicate the scope of protection to non-participants (if they are protected)? What is missing? - Signage - Requirement to communicate protection to workers at the venue(s) in the contract signed by the RIPE NCC Agreement to the Code of Conduct Should any of the following be exempt from agreeing to the Code of Conduct as a condition of participation? - Registered attendees at the venue - “Tourists” who are physically present at the meeting venue for hallway conversations but do not attend scheduled sessions, including social events - People participating over the Internet (including PSTN connections) - RIPE NCC staff, including temporary contractors Understanding Should we communicate the positive behaviours we want to encourage as well as the negative behaviours we want to discourage or should we rely on attendees to know how to be a “decent, considerate person” (quote from v3.0)? Reporting an Incident Which of the following mechanisms for reporting violations should not be acceptable? - In person - E-mail - Web form - Instant messaging - Social media Are any preferred? Mediation Is it possible to use a non-adversarial process to help address problems instead of falling back on sanctions? Investigation - JurisdictionCan the investigation process remain consistent between different RIPE Meeting locations, or are there jurisdictions whose requirements are incompatible with our intended process?Investigation - Professional Qualifications Should the investigation be managed by a person with relevant training, such as legal or HR qualifications? Investigation - Schedule What is a realistic schedule for an investigation, especially as many attendees will be pre-scheduled during a RIPE Meeting week? Investigation - Confidentiality Is it realistic to offer/guarantee reporters and participants in an investigation confidentiality? Decision Making Should the person or people conducting the investigation be the same person or people who make a decision at the end? Record Keeping What record keeping policies and processes are required to be legally compliant and how should that be communicated to those who are protected, might make a report, provide a witness statement etc… ? Statistical Reporting What kind of statistical reporting is possible without breaching any confidentiality requirements that exist? Process Usage Targets Should there be a target for the number of reports, so that there is some evidence that people trust the system and are willing to use it? Process Improvement What timeline is acceptable for identifying that a process improvement is needed and then implementing it? Is the current TF process satisfactory for that kind of continuous improvement?

4 5

Fwd: W3C Code of Conduct
by Mirjam Kühne 13 Oct '20

13 Oct '20

Hi all, I found this in an earlier mail. It is the the new proposed W3C Code of Conduct. Maybe it’s helpful for your work? >> https://www.w3.org/2020/05/CEPC Kind regards, Mirjam

3 2

Thoughts re CoC
by Niall O'Reilly 28 Sep '20

28 Sep '20

Hi, TF members. First, let me send you all my thanks for volunteering, and my best wishes for the work you have taken on. I understand from your charter that you will be taking account of feedback on the Diversity mailing list. I haven’t made any contribution there, so I would like, as you begin your work, to mention a couple of thoughts that I’ve had, in the hope that these may be helpful. I don’t wish either to hijack your work or to take your time in discussions of these thoughts. It’s enough for me that you consider them briefly, if only to dismiss them as out of scope or duplicating what you already have in mind. Here they are. 1. I notice that there’s another version of the CoC here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/ripe-mailing-list-ripe-forum-code-of-… I guess we want to end up with just one for all RIPE activities. Is this your impression too ? 2. WG Chairs are given a burden of responsibility by the text, “Chairs are responsible for facilitating and moderating the RIPE community's discussions. At times they may direct an individual to cease a certain type of behaviour. Chairs have the authority to moderate or ban disruptive community members if they decide this is necessary.” However, the underlying principles seem to me to be left implicit, as the focus in both Draft 3 and in the current CoC is on offences against an individual. I think that disruptive behaviour also encompasses “offences against the community”, such as wasting time either by filibustering or by making proposals which are without merit. Such behaviour is not necessarily personal in nature. Would it be useful to extend the list of examples of behaviour to be avoided by adding this category ? I hope this helps. Best regards, Niall

2 2

Zoom Details for First Call
by Antony Gollan 28 Sep '20

28 Sep '20

Dear TF members, Below are the details for our call on Thursday, 1 October 4-5pm (UTC+2). Cheers Ant *** Meeting Account 4 is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: RIPE CoC TF - 1st Call Time: Oct 1, 2020 04:00 PM Amsterdam Join Zoom Meeting https://ripe.zoom.us/j/94098254173 Meeting ID: 940 9825 4173 One tap mobile +16465588656,,94098254173# US (New York) +13017158592,,94098254173# US (Germantown) Dial by your location +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) Meeting ID: 940 9825 4173 Find your local number: https://ripe.zoom.us/u/aP2XsOv2z Join by SIP 94098254173(a)zoomcrc.com Join by H.323 162.255.37.11 (US West) 162.255.36.11 (US East) 115.114.131.7 (India Mumbai) 115.114.115.7 (India Hyderabad) 213.19.144.110 (Amsterdam Netherlands) 213.244.140.110 (Germany) 103.122.166.55 (Australia) 149.137.40.110 (Singapore) 64.211.144.160 (Brazil) 69.174.57.160 (Canada) 207.226.132.110 (Japan) Meeting ID: 940 9825 4173

2 1

Scheduing First Call
by Antony Gollan 28 Sep '20

28 Sep '20

Final email from me... According to my slightly confusing approach of having two parallel polls, it looks like the current preferences are: a) Wednesday, 30 September 3-4pm b) Thursday, 1 October 3-4pm c) Thursday, 1 October 4-5pm Each of these would get us 3/4 TF members, Athina and myself. Unfortunately, Salam seems to be unavailable for any of these options. 1. First poll https://doodle.com/poll/7rfhzxq9mqy26tyk#table 2. Second poll (with later dates) https://doodle.com/poll/28anac338qnzrucw#table I'll arrange the call next week once an option is confirmed. Cheers Ant

3 5

Community Feedback on CoC Draft and Suggestions
by Antony Gollan 25 Sep '20

25 Sep '20

Dear TF members, I've produced two initial documents ahead of the first call. Sorry, this is a little later than I'd hoped. 1. The first is a summary of community feedback since the current draft v3.0 was published: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q5FTTb5wTwV0zt1KUJgtloygmMUo9FNeJ_m9z1T… Here, I went through the archives and looked for comments that seemed relevant. I pasted over what I felt were the key points, and did some edits to keep the wordcount down (links to the full comments are included to the right). In some cases, I split one email into several entries in the table - this should be clear, as I've merged the refence columns in these cases. I also tried to categorise the feedback slightly. I'll give this another review next week to make sure I haven't missed anything. If there's time, I'll also look for feedback on the earlier drafts that still has relevence. Unfortunately, I don't know if the TF will find too much direction in terms of changes to the existing text here. This might be a good thing - it does seem there is more support for the general idea of a CoC than when the Diversity TF first started with this. 2. The second document has a couple of initial thoughts/suggestions on the initial CoC document from our side: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11G9S2FRSU9RWM5QPlUyS6TJzL2vT1sWBt3fgGeb… Finally, I assume that the goal is not to throw out the current draft, which is clear and well written. However, from experience it's sometimes helpful to start with a blank page, as the existing text and structure can steer your thinking in subtle ways. This might be something to consider, even if the aim is to produce something very similar to the current draft. While counter-intuitive, this is often the faster approach as well. Happy to follow the TF's lead here in any case. Cheers Ant

2 3

Scheduling First Call
by Antony Gollan 24 Sep '20

24 Sep '20

Dear TF members, I've created a poll to find a date for our first call: https://doodle.com/poll/7rfhzxq9mqy26tyk Also just want to note that Mirjam and Niall are now subscribed to this list as well. Cheers Ant

5 6

RIPE CoC TF - Potential Work Approach
by Leo Vegoda 23 Sep '20

23 Sep '20

Dear TF and RIPE NCC staff, As promised earlier today, I have done some thinking for how we can work efficiently to achieve the task we have taken on. I have drafted an approach and it relies on the RIPE NCC collating an input document we can review and assess. This approach relies on significant support from the RIPE NCC but I think that the up front investment will help us work efficiently as a team and maximize the chance that we will meet our target of producing an update that can be shared at RIPE81. I would be grateful for input on this approach from the RIPE NCC and TF members. If there is agreement on the viability of the approach, we will need feedback from the RIPE NCC on the time it will take to prepare the input document so that we can then review it and schedule our first meeting. The decisions made at that first meeting will help us schedule the rest of the work. Also, if there is agreement on this approach, I will prepare a draft agenda for the first meeting and circulate that. I think that the discussion at the first meeting is likely to inform our decisions on the agendas for other meetings. Kind regards, Leo Objective The immediate objective of this TF is to update the most recent version of the Code of Conduct document to a version that can be adopted by the RIPE Community. The adopted document will need to be reviewed and updated based on future experience. The document sent to the RIPE Community for adoption needs to address the most important outstanding issues. The updated document should be accompanied by a companion document that: 1. Identifies each change. 2. Provides a rationale for the change. 3. Indicates whether the TF suggests looking more closely at this issue in future updates. A plan for the next two work items can be developed after RIPE81. Challenges The most recent update to the document was drafted in a time when international travel was easier and large conferences could be held. Large in-person events may not be possible for some time and airlines are facing business challenges that could place a practical limit on the amount of international travel possible for several years. Our review and update should acknowledge where the balance of participation has already changed and might continue to change. Input In working towards the objective the TF needs to review unresolved issues documented in three areas: - The RIPE NCC impact analysis on the proposal. - The mailing list discussion. - The minuted discussion at the last meeting. Approach The TF should rely on the RIPE NCC staff to produce a document summarizing the unresolved issues drawn from the input sources. Issues should be categorized, so that the TF can discuss general issues before focusing on specific text. The rationale for the differing views should be included in the document. For each category, the TF should discuss and decide whether it is practical to agree an update to the most recent version of the Code of Conduct by RIPE81, or if the issue is so significant that it needs to be returned to the whole RIPE Community for further discussion. Work Method The TF is distributed across four countries and about 12,000km. Meetings should be conducted using a video or telephone conference system and kept to a minimum. The RIPE NCC has already established a mailing list (coc-tf(a)ripe.net) for the TF. There should be an initial meeting to: - Help us integrate as a team. - Get to know the RIPE NCC staff members who will support our work. - Discuss the work method described below. - Make appropriate changes to this plan. The RIPE NCC should provide tooling to allow the TF members to share working documents, comments and potential edits with each other in an efficient way. The RIPE NCC should provide a conferencing system. The RIPE NCC should produce a table of issues, organized in categories, and summarizing the differing views expressed, to be discussed and addressed. Each member of the TF should review the table of issues and sort them into the following categories: 1. This is a simple issue that can be resolved with updated text. 2. This is a more complex issue that needs to be thought through and discussed. 3. This is an issue that requires external input, such as from the whole RIPE Community or a legal expert. The output from this initial exercise can then be used to develop a more detailed approach and timeline, with help from the RIPE NCC. The TF should publish the minutes of its meetings on relevant TF web pages, after they have been approved, whether that is by e-mail confirmation or at the next meeting. Scheduling of 1st Meeting To make the best use of people’s time, I suggest the TF’s first meeting be held after the RIPE NCC has prepared the input materials and the TF members have reviewed them and shared their review. This will allow us to make the best use of our time at the meeting. The RIPE NCC should prepare and circulate meeting minutes in a timely fashion.

4 4