- cooperation-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Vb: Re: On the Nature of WG Chairs...
by Maud.Karlberg＠vll.se 26 May '16

26 May '16

Hi! Can you please take me away from this sendlist? Maud Karlberg Vänliga hälsningar Maud Karlberg Informatikenheten By 5A, 2 tr Västerbottens läns landsting 901 85 Umeå 090-7854101 www.vll.se/informatik ----- Vidarebefordrat av Maud Karlberg/US/VLL/SE på 2016-05-26 15:34 ----- Från: Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel(a)google.com> Till: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com> Kopia: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie>, "cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net" <cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net> Datum: 2016-05-26 15:04 Ärende: Re: [cooperation-wg] On the Nature of WG Chairs... Sänt av: "cooperation-wg" <cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net> Brian, this is an excellent point. The perfect should not be the enemy of the done, and we should understand that there are a mix of qualities that can make for effective co-chairs, especially in the Coop-WG. Discussion of what these qualities are is productive and welcome, of course. Best, Meredith On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com > wrote: I generally agree with you. But I think we need to discuss "out-reach" more. Representing the WG in other fora has proved problematic in the past for obvious reasons. I also tend to think that in any case "out-reach" has too be something for the whole WG and not an additional task just for the co-chairs. Gordon On 26 May 2016 at 14:19, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet(a)heanet.ie> wrote: Afternoon, There has been a lot of discussion on list and at the session today about the "job requirements" of a WG Co-Chair, especially in relation to how well they know the community or how embedded they may be in it. There is precedent for situations where a WG's Co-Chairs may be a mix of people who are long standing members of the community and "subject matter experts" who are more recently arrived. Of course those who are more recently arrived do need to make a commitment to becoming suitably involved, but we need to be careful about perfect being the enemy of done. This is especially relevant, I think, in Co-operation where the whole point is outreach and bringing more stakeholder groups into the community, or at least into contact. I make no comment about the current candidates for Co-Chair(s) of the WG, it is more of a general observation that should be taken into account for the discussion. Thanks, Brian -- Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 web: http://www.heanet.ie/ -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC

2 1

On the Nature of WG Chairs...
by Brian Nisbet 26 May '16

26 May '16

Afternoon, There has been a lot of discussion on list and at the session today about the "job requirements" of a WG Co-Chair, especially in relation to how well they know the community or how embedded they may be in it. There is precedent for situations where a WG's Co-Chairs may be a mix of people who are long standing members of the community and "subject matter experts" who are more recently arrived. Of course those who are more recently arrived do need to make a commitment to becoming suitably involved, but we need to be careful about perfect being the enemy of done. This is especially relevant, I think, in Co-operation where the whole point is outreach and bringing more stakeholder groups into the community, or at least into contact. I make no comment about the current candidates for Co-Chair(s) of the WG, it is more of a general observation that should be taken into account for the discussion. Thanks, Brian -- Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 web: http://www.heanet.ie/

5 7

Status on co-chairs process?
by Gordon Lennox 26 May '16

26 May '16

Thanks again to Meredith for an interesting agenda this morning. The end though was slightly rushed and we ran quite late so it is good that that the discussion can continue on the list. We obviously did not have the time this topic required during the session. I think we now need two discussions: one about the WG itself and one about the co-chairs. They are linked. But the one about the WG is and will be ongoing. I will focus here on the co-chairs and in particular the process. I still think though that we should keep with published the process. This is where I think we are: * the chair requests candidates. Done. * there is a period of about two weeks when names can be put forward. On-going? I think though we are coming towards the end of that period. I think we ought to be a little bit flexible on when that period actually comes to and end given how the process kicked-off. But I presume that it will end this weekend? ** the chair then announces the final list of candidates. ** there is a another period of about two weeks when the WG can have a conversation about particular requirements and with the candidates. ** the chair announces the consensus. I see no need to rush this any faster. Do people agree? I would hope though that in the future we might stretch the time-scales a little - take the published time-lines as an indicative baseline rather than binding formal constraint - and take a more relaxed approach. Gordon

4 6

Chairs of this wg
by Patrik Fältström 26 May '16

26 May '16

All, I have been following the discussion about the appointment of chair (I am nervous over use of the word "election") of this WG and think about what features I would like to see on a new chair. I must admit I think it is important the individuals being chairs are active in the RIPE community as chairs as a collective have a responsibility in the RIPE PDP. I further think at least one chair should be relatively plugged in and active in the general policy development process in the RIPE region (not only EU). And because of this I must say I am still looking for strong(er) candidates than the ones at the moment have announced their availability. I do understand Meredith want a co-chair given I not only initiated this wg, but also was one of the co-chairs for a couple of years. One do not want to be alone. But, we should appoint the correct people because they are the correct people, and not because we must have two co-chairs. I because of this would like to see more candidates before I am prepared on saying whether I think one of the today available persons include the one(s) I would like to see as co-chair(s). And as a result of this, I request the point on the agenda be to discuss the appointment process, requirements etc but maybe not the actual appointment. Patrik

5 4

Choosing chairs
by Gordon Lennox 25 May '16

25 May '16

In advance of any discussion we will have on the choice of new co-chairs I have looked again at the process as drafted by Meredith. I still think it is OK. It might be word-smithed a little in the future, not to change the ideas but to make it a little bit more robust. But that is not urgent. And anyway I don’t think anyone in the community is going to start counting commas. Looking at what is going on elsewhere it was nice to see that at least one other WG adopted Meredith’s text! But looking wider I see words like elections, consensus, decisions. I don’t think there is conflict. But here is my take. We have tended to avoid elections as we don’t have a nice list of people who are eligible to vote and anyway the folk active on mailing lists are also important. We tend to go instead for consensus. But maybe to point out the obvious somebody has to decide that there is consensus. That decision is perhaps the most important job of a chair / co-chair. And if they ever get it wrong people ought to make that clear and the conversation can then continue. That is basically again what Meredith proposed. Getting consensus can though take time. So a quick “show of hands” can be useful for certain quick decisions. But maybe not for the choice of WG chairs. There are though other situations where we vote - obviously when we have a list of those eligible to vote but also where there is no chair to make the call. That is the situation we will have when we decide on the RIPE chair. So consensus within the WG but voting at the level of RIPE? And so no conflict? Gordon

1 0

European Commission proposes new e-commerce rules
by Gordon Lennox 25 May '16

25 May '16

Please look at full press release for some more details. Snippets follow: Commission proposes new e-commerce rules to help consumers and companies reap full benefit of Single Market - Brussels, 25 May 2016 The European Commission today tabled a package of measures to allow consumers and companies to buy and sell products and services online more easily and confidently across the EU. Today’s e-commerce package is composed of: • A legislative proposal to address unjustified geoblocking and other forms of discrimination on the grounds of nationality, residence or establishment; • A legislative proposal on cross-border parcel delivery services to increase the transparency of prices and improve regulatory oversight; • A legislative proposal to strengthen enforcement of consumers' rights and guidance to clarify, among others, what qualifies as an unfair commercial practice in the digital world. The proposed revision of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation will give more powers to national authorities to better enforce consumer rights. They will be able to: • check if websites geo-block consumers or offer after-sales conditions not respecting EU rules (e.g. withdrawal rights); • order the immediate take-down of websites hosting scams; • request information from domain registrars and banks to detect the identity of the responsible trader. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1887_en.htm

4 6

Commission updates EU audiovisual rules and presents targeted approach to online platforms
by Gordon Lennox 25 May '16

25 May '16

Please look at the press release for more details. Snippets follow: Commission updates EU audiovisual rules and presents targeted approach to online platforms - Brussels, 25 May 2016 The European Commission today proposed an update of EU audiovisual rules to create a fairer environment for all players, promote European films, protect children and tackle hate speech better. This proposal also reflects a new approach to online platforms, addressing challenges in different areas. As part of its Digital Single Market strategy, today the Commission presented an updated Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD); the common rules which have governed audiovisual media, ensured cultural diversity and the free circulation of content in the EU for almost 30 years. Nowadays viewers do not only watch video content via their TV channels but also increasingly via video-on-demand services (such as Netflix and MUBI) and video-sharing platforms (such as YouTube and Dailymotion). This is why the Commission wants to achieve a better balance of the rules which today apply to traditional broadcasters, video-on-demand providers and video-sharing platforms, especially when it comes to protecting children. The revised AVMSD also strengthens the promotion of European cultural diversity, ensures the independence of audiovisual regulators and gives more flexibility to broadcasters over advertising. This proposal reflects the new approach of the Commission towards online platforms - like online marketplaces, search engines, payment systems, social media, video and content-sharing sites. Since the launch of the Digital Single Market strategy in May 2015, the Commission has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the social and economic role of these new players. Today the Commission concluded that a 'one-size-fits-all' approach was not appropriate for consumers to benefit from the opportunities and for the rules to meet the different challenges posed by the very diverse types of online platforms. Based on this approach, the Commission will look at each area where it can act, from telecoms to copyright rules, to address any specific problems in a future-proof way for all market players. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1873_en.htm

1 0

WTSA
by Patrik Fältström 24 May '16

24 May '16

Hi, As we are moving into a new ITU planning cycle, with specifically WTSA later during 2016 that sets the Study Groups, it is important that we all decide what organization we would like to deal with what issues. To help with this preparatory work ISOC have created this document that I think makes it quite clear what issues might come up: <http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/itu-world-telecommunication-standardizat…> One of the main reasons I think this is important is that we have a terrible experience when ITU-T started to discuss MPLS related issues, something already dealt with in the IETF and we can not have the same overlap between organizations again. Because of this, now is the time to ensure ITU-T do not bring up issues already dealt with in other organizations, and in a similar way we should not redo in non-ITU-T environments things dealt with in ITU-T. I for example think it is of ultimate importance that any IP address policy (of any shape or form) is deal with in the RIRs. And not in any ITU-T study group. And I ask whether this WG is where coordination in the RIPE Community can take place? Patrik

2 1

Update on EU Platform Regulation
by Gordon Lennox 23 May '16

23 May '16

>From Politico: *14 GOVERNMENTS WRITE TO REJECT ‘ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL’ PLATFORM REGULATION: * The governments believe an EU regulation of Internet platform would “hamper innovation.” They would like to see more ambitious digital single market proposals from the Commission, and a “positive approach.” The U.K. and Poland head the list of signatories. Germany, France, Italy, Spain did not join. http://politi.co/1NEYNKN <http://politico.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e26c1a1c392386a968d02fdbc…>

1 0

eIDs
by Gordon Lennox 13 May '16

13 May '16

We had a presentation on EU eIDs at Dublin if I remember well. Then we had the (still unofficial) draft Communication on platforms - as previously mentioned on the list - where eIDs are again mentioned. Now here is the UK take: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introducing-govuk-verify/introdu… If anyone has information from their country on this it might be nice to share. (I am not sure why I wrote “nice” there.) :-) Gordon

3 3