Press releases from European Commission, 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. 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. http://europa.eu/rapid/latest-press-releases.htm
On 24-05-16 14:20, Meredith Whittaker wrote:
We have three people (and maybe more -- speak up!) who meet this criteria.
This is a tentative hand going up. I am potentially interested in assisting as a co-chair, but I think I have some questions about the actual role of the co-chairs of this wg. Just like Jim and Patrik, I feel that it is important that the co-chairs are familiar with and to our community. While it is also important that they are familiar with what is going on in Brussels and Geneva, I feel that the role of the co-chars doesn't necessarily require personal involvement in the outreach activities and government/regulatory activities. I feel it is more important that the co-chairs encourage people involved in those activities to share their findings with the WG and the community, and raise the flag on significant activities the community should be aware of (and possibly try to see if there is a consensus view within the community on those issues). Is this a view shared by the rest of the WG? Unfortunately I will have to leave Copenhagen Thursday morning, so I won't be able to be at the WG session in person :(. Julf
On 25 May 2016, at 14:56, Johan Helsingius wrote:
I feel it is more important that the co-chairs encourage people involved in those activities to share their findings with the WG and the community, and raise the flag on significant activities the community should be aware of (and possibly try to see if there is a consensus view within the community on those issues).
I think this is a good idea with consensus, but more important to encourage the wp participants (us on this list) to speak with our respective representatives here and there and say what we want (regardless of whether we have consensus or not). And this is why I am looking for in the RIPE Community Active participants and/or people very initiated in policy work in the RIPE Region. You might remember that we started this wg with one private sector co-chair (myself) and one government (Maria Häll). OTOH, that was good at the time (at least when we started...). ;-) Compared to other working groups we do not really have as a goal to create documents and publish shared views. The working group have more been a. catalyst for coordinated activities, and b. a place where RIPE NCC can present and interact with the community. "Cooperation". Although of course it is good if we also have consensus. paf
On 25-05-16 15:15, Patrik Fältström wrote:
Although of course it is good if we also have consensus.
Just to clarify - there was definitely a reason I put all those modifiers in the phrase "possibly try to see if there is a consensus view". I don't see it as the job of the WG or the co-chairs to force a single shared view - only to articulate a common view in case there is one. Julf
On 25 May 2016, at 15:25, Johan Helsingius wrote:
On 25-05-16 15:15, Patrik Fältström wrote:
Although of course it is good if we also have consensus.
Just to clarify - there was definitely a reason I put all those modifiers in the phrase "possibly try to see if there is a consensus view". I don't see it as the job of the WG or the co-chairs to force a single shared view - only to articulate a common view in case there is one.
We completely agree!!! Again! :-D Patrik
Johan Helsingius wrote:
Just like Jim and Patrik, I feel that it is important that the co-chairs are familiar with and to our community.
there may be room for both here. The co-op WG has a mandate for outeach outside the existing community, but the chair function needs to understand what ripe/ripe ncc is and how it serves its community. This is not always obvious to outsiders (e.g. "ripe ncc is not the police", etc). There definitely needs to be at least one person or more as co-chair who understands the ripe community well. If there is someone else who doesn't understand it as thoroughly, that may not be be a major problem, as long as there is balance. Nick
On 25 May 2016, at 17:05, Nick Hilliard wrote:
There definitely needs to be at least one person or more as co-chair who understands the ripe community well. If there is someone else who doesn't understand it as thoroughly, that may not be be a major problem, as long as there is balance.
+1 paf
The outreach bit has proved problematic in the past. I remember a group trying to talk to a MEP. The relationships that are not obvious to outsiders are not always obvious to insiders either! On the other hand I appreciated the work of NCC in drafting a formal response, effectively on behalf of the WG, to a Commission proposal. We need to talk more about this.The potential is there. Gordon On 25 May 2016 at 17:05, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
there may be room for both here. The co-op WG has a mandate for outeach outside the existing community, but the chair function needs to understand what ripe/ripe ncc is and how it serves its community. This is not always obvious to outsiders (e.g. "ripe ncc is not the police", etc).
Hello again, dear friends, First, thank you so much for the lively discussion during today's Coop-WG. I genuinely appreciate your enthusiasm and care for this important process. I have CCed all of the current candidates for co-chair here (I realize they are all also on the list, but as I hope many of you appreciate, I'm a fan of redundancy). To refresh your memory, these are: - *Achilleas Kemos* -- from the European Commission's DGConnect. He was present today and gave an overview of his work and his interest during the working group. - *Collin Anderson* -- Network Researcher and Internet Policy enthusist. He was also present today, and provided an overview. - *Analina Aspis* -- Lawyer and Researcher at the Law Research Institute Ambrosio Gioja, specializing in ICT law. She was not present today, but you can read her overview posted in a previous Coop-WG thread - *Johan Helsingius* -- (tentative nominee, as above). I'm not sure of his background or interest, but I invite him to disclose this in an email here. I invite those on this list to suggest other nominees, to ask questions and make comments to the current nominees, and to continue the lively discussion. As I mentioned, *I will be receptive to suggestions and will work to distill the decisions of the community in a week's time*, disclosing such in an email to this list. If there are those here who feel strongly that we should extend the process beyond a week, please speak up here. I am sensitive to the need for discussion, and don't want to rush anything. That said, before the next meeting I need a co-chair. This is the responsible move on my part, to ensure I'm not a single point of failure in the case that I change jobs, have the flu during a meeting, etc.. Best, Meredith On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> wrote:
The outreach bit has proved problematic in the past. I remember a group trying to talk to a MEP. The relationships that are not obvious to outsiders are not always obvious to insiders either!
On the other hand I appreciated the work of NCC in drafting a formal response, effectively on behalf of the WG, to a Commission proposal.
We need to talk more about this.The potential is there.
Gordon
On 25 May 2016 at 17:05, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
there may be room for both here. The co-op WG has a mandate for outeach outside the existing community, but the chair function needs to understand what ripe/ripe ncc is and how it serves its community. This is not always obvious to outsiders (e.g. "ripe ncc is not the police", etc).
-- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC
Achilleas Kemos +1 Von: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Meredith Whittaker Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Mai 2016 11:48 An: Gordon Lennox; Collin Anderson; Achilleas.KEMOS@ec.europa.eu; Analia Aspis; Johan Helsingius Cc: cooperation-wg@ripe.net Betreff: [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg Hello again, dear friends, First, thank you so much for the lively discussion during today's Coop-WG. I genuinely appreciate your enthusiasm and care for this important process. I have CCed all of the current candidates for co-chair here (I realize they are all also on the list, but as I hope many of you appreciate, I'm a fan of redundancy). To refresh your memory, these are: * Achilleas Kemos -- from the European Commission's DGConnect. He was present today and gave an overview of his work and his interest during the working group. * Collin Anderson -- Network Researcher and Internet Policy enthusist. He was also present today, and provided an overview. * Analina Aspis -- Lawyer and Researcher at the Law Research Institute Ambrosio Gioja, specializing in ICT law. She was not present today, but you can read her overview posted in a previous Coop-WG thread * Johan Helsingius -- (tentative nominee, as above). I'm not sure of his background or interest, but I invite him to disclose this in an email here. I invite those on this list to suggest other nominees, to ask questions and make comments to the current nominees, and to continue the lively discussion. As I mentioned, I will be receptive to suggestions and will work to distill the decisions of the community in a week's time, disclosing such in an email to this list. If there are those here who feel strongly that we should extend the process beyond a week, please speak up here. I am sensitive to the need for discussion, and don't want to rush anything. That said, before the next meeting I need a co-chair. This is the responsible move on my part, to ensure I'm not a single point of failure in the case that I change jobs, have the flu during a meeting, etc.. Best, Meredith On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com<mailto:gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com>> wrote: The outreach bit has proved problematic in the past. I remember a group trying to talk to a MEP. The relationships that are not obvious to outsiders are not always obvious to insiders either! On the other hand I appreciated the work of NCC in drafting a formal response, effectively on behalf of the WG, to a Commission proposal. We need to talk more about this.The potential is there. Gordon On 25 May 2016 at 17:05, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie<mailto:nick@inex.ie>> wrote: there may be room for both here. The co-op WG has a mandate for outeach outside the existing community, but the chair function needs to understand what ripe/ripe ncc is and how it serves its community. This is not always obvious to outsiders (e.g. "ripe ncc is not the police", etc). -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC
Achilleas Kemos +1 Przesłano z telefonu Android przy pomocy Symantec TouchDown (www.symantec.com) -----Original Message----- From: Constanze.Buerger@bmi.bund.de [Constanze.Buerger@bmi.bund.de] Received: czwartek, 26 maj 2016, 12:29 To: meredithrachel@google.com [meredithrachel@google.com]; gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com [gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com]; collina@gmail.com [collina@gmail.com]; KEMOS Achilleas (CNECT) [Achilleas.KEMOS@ec.europa.eu]; analia.aspis@gmail.com [analia.aspis@gmail.com]; julf@julf.com [julf@julf.com] CC: cooperation-wg@ripe.net [cooperation-wg@ripe.net] Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: Chairs of this wg Achilleas Kemos +1 Von: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Meredith Whittaker Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Mai 2016 11:48 An: Gordon Lennox; Collin Anderson; Achilleas.KEMOS@ec.europa.eu; Analia Aspis; Johan Helsingius Cc: cooperation-wg@ripe.net Betreff: [BMI-SPAM-Verdacht] Re: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg Hello again, dear friends, First, thank you so much for the lively discussion during today's Coop-WG. I genuinely appreciate your enthusiasm and care for this important process. I have CCed all of the current candidates for co-chair here (I realize they are all also on the list, but as I hope many of you appreciate, I'm a fan of redundancy). To refresh your memory, these are: * Achilleas Kemos -- from the European Commission's DGConnect. He was present today and gave an overview of his work and his interest during the working group. * Collin Anderson -- Network Researcher and Internet Policy enthusist. He was also present today, and provided an overview. * Analina Aspis -- Lawyer and Researcher at the Law Research Institute Ambrosio Gioja, specializing in ICT law. She was not present today, but you can read her overview posted in a previous Coop-WG thread * Johan Helsingius -- (tentative nominee, as above). I'm not sure of his background or interest, but I invite him to disclose this in an email here. I invite those on this list to suggest other nominees, to ask questions and make comments to the current nominees, and to continue the lively discussion. As I mentioned, I will be receptive to suggestions and will work to distill the decisions of the community in a week's time, disclosing such in an email to this list. If there are those here who feel strongly that we should extend the process beyond a week, please speak up here. I am sensitive to the need for discussion, and don't want to rush anything. That said, before the next meeting I need a co-chair. This is the responsible move on my part, to ensure I'm not a single point of failure in the case that I change jobs, have the flu during a meeting, etc.. Best, Meredith On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com<mailto:gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com>> wrote: The outreach bit has proved problematic in the past. I remember a group trying to talk to a MEP. The relationships that are not obvious to outsiders are not always obvious to insiders either! On the other hand I appreciated the work of NCC in drafting a formal response, effectively on behalf of the WG, to a Commission proposal. We need to talk more about this.The potential is there. Gordon On 25 May 2016 at 17:05, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie<mailto:nick@inex.ie>> wrote: there may be room for both here. The co-op WG has a mandate for outeach outside the existing community, but the chair function needs to understand what ripe/ripe ncc is and how it serves its community. This is not always obvious to outsiders (e.g. "ripe ncc is not the police", etc). -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC
+1 Achilleas Kemos Von: cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Meredith Whittaker Gesendet: Donnerstag, 26. Mai 2016 11:48 An: Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com>; Collin Anderson <collina@gmail.com>; Achilleas.KEMOS@ec.europa.eu; Analia Aspis <analia.aspis@gmail.com>; Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> Cc: cooperation-wg@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg Hello again, dear friends, First, thank you so much for the lively discussion during today's Coop-WG. I genuinely appreciate your enthusiasm and care for this important process. I have CCed all of the current candidates for co-chair here (I realize they are all also on the list, but as I hope many of you appreciate, I'm a fan of redundancy). To refresh your memory, these are: * Achilleas Kemos -- from the European Commission's DGConnect. He was present today and gave an overview of his work and his interest during the working group. * Collin Anderson -- Network Researcher and Internet Policy enthusist. He was also present today, and provided an overview. * Analina Aspis -- Lawyer and Researcher at the Law Research Institute Ambrosio Gioja, specializing in ICT law. She was not present today, but you can read her overview posted in a previous Coop-WG thread * Johan Helsingius -- (tentative nominee, as above). I'm not sure of his background or interest, but I invite him to disclose this in an email here. I invite those on this list to suggest other nominees, to ask questions and make comments to the current nominees, and to continue the lively discussion. As I mentioned, I will be receptive to suggestions and will work to distill the decisions of the community in a week's time, disclosing such in an email to this list. If there are those here who feel strongly that we should extend the process beyond a week, please speak up here. I am sensitive to the need for discussion, and don't want to rush anything. That said, before the next meeting I need a co-chair. This is the responsible move on my part, to ensure I'm not a single point of failure in the case that I change jobs, have the flu during a meeting, etc.. Best, Meredith On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com<mailto:gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com>> wrote: The outreach bit has proved problematic in the past. I remember a group trying to talk to a MEP. The relationships that are not obvious to outsiders are not always obvious to insiders either! On the other hand I appreciated the work of NCC in drafting a formal response, effectively on behalf of the WG, to a Commission proposal. We need to talk more about this.The potential is there. Gordon On 25 May 2016 at 17:05, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie<mailto:nick@inex.ie>> wrote: there may be room for both here. The co-op WG has a mandate for outeach outside the existing community, but the chair function needs to understand what ripe/ripe ncc is and how it serves its community. This is not always obvious to outsiders (e.g. "ripe ncc is not the police", etc). -- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC
Hi all, To be very clear --* this is not an election*. While it's great to see the open and vocal support and we will certainly weigh this in decision-making, I want to make that clear. Discussion and providing rationale for your support for a given candidate (or otherwise) would be appreciated. To clarify as well -- we are also looking for more than one additional co-chair. Three is the number that seems healthy and productive to me, but I'm open to suggestions from the community. Thanks, Meredith On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Schaa, Tahar <tahar.schaa@cassini.de> wrote:
+1 Achilleas Kemos
*Von:* cooperation-wg [mailto:cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] *Im Auftrag von *Meredith Whittaker *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 26. Mai 2016 11:48 *An:* Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com>; Collin Anderson < collina@gmail.com>; Achilleas.KEMOS@ec.europa.eu; Analia Aspis < analia.aspis@gmail.com>; Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> *Cc:* cooperation-wg@ripe.net *Betreff:* Re: [cooperation-wg] Chairs of this wg
Hello again, dear friends,
First, thank you so much for the lively discussion during today's Coop-WG. I genuinely appreciate your enthusiasm and care for this important process.
I have CCed all of the current candidates for co-chair here (I realize they are all also on the list, but as I hope many of you appreciate, I'm a fan of redundancy). To refresh your memory, these are:
- *Achilleas Kemos* -- from the European Commission's DGConnect. He was present today and gave an overview of his work and his interest during the working group. - *Collin Anderson* -- Network Researcher and Internet Policy enthusist. He was also present today, and provided an overview. - *Analina Aspis* -- Lawyer and Researcher at the Law Research Institute Ambrosio Gioja, specializing in ICT law. She was not present today, but you can read her overview posted in a previous Coop-WG thread - *Johan Helsingius* -- (tentative nominee, as above). I'm not sure of his background or interest, but I invite him to disclose this in an email here.
I invite those on this list to suggest other nominees, to ask questions and make comments to the current nominees, and to continue the lively discussion.
As I mentioned, *I will be receptive to suggestions and will work to distill the decisions of the community in a week's time*, disclosing such in an email to this list. If there are those here who feel strongly that we should extend the process beyond a week, please speak up here. I am sensitive to the need for discussion, and don't want to rush anything. That said, before the next meeting I need a co-chair. This is the responsible move on my part, to ensure I'm not a single point of failure in the case that I change jobs, have the flu during a meeting, etc..
Best,
Meredith
On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> wrote:
The outreach bit has proved problematic in the past. I remember a group trying to talk to a MEP. The relationships that are not obvious to outsiders are not always obvious to insiders either!
On the other hand I appreciated the work of NCC in drafting a formal response, effectively on behalf of the WG, to a Commission proposal.
We need to talk more about this.The potential is there.
Gordon
On 25 May 2016 at 17:05, Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie> wrote:
there may be room for both here. The co-op WG has a mandate for outeach outside the existing community, but the chair function needs to understand what ripe/ripe ncc is and how it serves its community. This is not always obvious to outsiders (e.g. "ripe ncc is not the police", etc).
--
Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC
-- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC
I really regret I couldn't be physically present this morning, but it appears there was a fair bit of good discussion. On 26-05-16 11:47, Meredith Whittaker wrote:
* *Johan Helsingius* -- (tentative nominee, as above). I'm not sure of his background or interest, but I invite him to disclose this in an email here.
"Sic transit gloria mundi"... :) I guess there is poetic justice that having at one point (when IP packets were still conveyed by pterodactyls) been the largest provider of anonymity on the net (some of you might remember me as julf@anon.penet.fi), I have now managed to achieve anonymity among the younger generation of the RIPE community. As for my background, I started out, as so many of the pillars of our community, as part of the "EUnet Mafia", running the email/usenet backbone for Finland in the 80's, dealing with the regulatory issues around the ITU model and telecom monopolies. My pro-privacy and pro-free-speech projects got me the EFF Pioneer Award, but also got my picture on the front page of The Observer, with the lovely caption "The Peddlars of Child Porn on the Internet". As you can imagine, that led to a fairly strong involvement in content regulation policy issues, and also my involvement as an early board member in Bits of Freedom. As one of the original cypherpunks, I also did my own small part in the Crypto Wars. I do confess to having had a role in getting the Soviet Union connected to the Net, but you will have to pry me with copious amounts of vodka if you want to hear any juicy details. On the downside, I have spent far too much of my life in the corporate world - after having been part of putting together the first pan-European ISP, I ended up as CTO and EVP of the ill-fated carrier and IP services operator KPNQwest. Having realized I am not very compatible with corporate structure and hierarchy, I have since been involved with smaller technology companies. I spent a number of years as the chairman of the board of IoT device manufacturer Viola Systems (now part of ABB), and having been a board member for a long time, I just got appointed chairman of the board for IoT services provider BaseN. I am currently the Nomcom appointee in the Non-Contracted Parties House of the ICANN GNSO Council. Oh, and just for completeness, I am a Swedish-speaking Finn (*not* from the Åland Islands), but I have been living in Amsterdam since 1997. As to my view of the role of a co-chair for this WG, I think RIPE-542, as posted by Hans Petter, sums it up pretty well. Will try to participate in the discussion and answer any questions, but will be on the road with sporadic connectivity until Monday evening. Julf
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf@julf.com> wrote:
I really regret I couldn't be physically present this morning, but it appears there was a fair bit of good discussion.
almost never too late:-) a few comments inline
On 26-05-16 11:47, Meredith Whittaker wrote:
* *Johan Helsingius* -- (tentative nominee, as above). I'm not sure of his background or interest, but I invite him to disclose this in an email here.
"Sic transit gloria mundi"... :)
I guess there is poetic justice that having at one point (when IP packets were still conveyed by pterodactyls) been the largest provider of anonymity on the net (some of you might remember me as julf@anon.penet.fi), I have now managed to achieve anonymity among the younger generation of the RIPE community.
where you active at RIPE in the earlier days ? and if so where? <snip>
On the downside, I have spent far too much of my life in the corporate world - after having been part of putting together the first pan-European ISP, I ended up as CTO and EVP of the ill-fated carrier and IP services operator KPNQwest. Having realized I am not very compatible with corporate structure and hierarchy, I have since been involved with smaller technology companies. I spent a number of years as the chairman of the board of IoT device manufacturer Viola Systems (now part of ABB), and having been a board member for a long time, I just got appointed chairman of the board for IoT services provider BaseN.
I am currently the Nomcom appointee in the Non-Contracted Parties House of the ICANN GNSO Council. <snip> As to my view of the role of a co-chair for this WG, I think RIPE-542, as posted by Hans Petter, sums it up pretty well. Will try to participate in the discussion and answer any questions, but will be on the road with sporadic connectivity until Monday evening.
so you're also active elsewhere in the Internet community, that's great! And with that said, think you'll be an excellent co-chair with Meredith and preferable one more :-) -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no
On 1 Jun 2016, at 19:31, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com> wrote:
so you're also active elsewhere in the Internet community, that's great! And with that said, think you'll be an excellent co-chair with Meredith and preferable one more :-)
<AOL Mode*> me too! </AOL Mode> *Kids, ask the nearest Old Fart. :-) Of the candidates that have emerged so far, I think the addition of Johan (Julf) and Achilleas would provide the right sort of balance and experience to complement what Meredith brings to the role. IMO it would be great to have a co-chair from the government/regulatory side of things and another who has deep roots in the RIPE/Internet community. I think that’s what the WG needs. Well, that’s the combination I would like to see... Achilleas and Julf would nail those attributes in a way the other candidates don’t quite reach. They’re also based in the RIPE service region too, an added advantage. Not that I have anything against the other choices. I’m sure they’d do a good job and they’re keen to get involved. Which counts for a lot. However it’s not ideal if all of a WG’s co-chairs, especially this WG’s, were based thousands of km away on the other side of the world. It’s likely that a co-chair of this WG might sometimes be needed for face to face meetings with government and regulatory officials from the RIPE service region. Or to have those interactions in their $dayjob and be able to update the WG about them. Perhaps I’m guilty of naming names before the WG's clarified the requirements for its co-chairs. If so, maybe a discussion about that needs to reach consensus before the WG decides who the co-chairs should be.
Feel free to start a discussion about requirements, Jim. With the understanding that among those biggest requirements are: - Willing - Able to attend - Available Bicycle shedding other qualities may be fun, but I don't think useful as it pertains to making this selection. On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 1 Jun 2016, at 19:31, Roger Jørgensen <rogerj@gmail.com> wrote:
so you're also active elsewhere in the Internet community, that's great! And with that said, think you'll be an excellent co-chair with Meredith and preferable one more :-)
<AOL Mode*> me too! </AOL Mode>
*Kids, ask the nearest Old Fart. :-)
Of the candidates that have emerged so far, I think the addition of Johan (Julf) and Achilleas would provide the right sort of balance and experience to complement what Meredith brings to the role.
IMO it would be great to have a co-chair from the government/regulatory side of things and another who has deep roots in the RIPE/Internet community. I think that’s what the WG needs. Well, that’s the combination I would like to see... Achilleas and Julf would nail those attributes in a way the other candidates don’t quite reach. They’re also based in the RIPE service region too, an added advantage.
Not that I have anything against the other choices. I’m sure they’d do a good job and they’re keen to get involved. Which counts for a lot. However it’s not ideal if all of a WG’s co-chairs, especially this WG’s, were based thousands of km away on the other side of the world. It’s likely that a co-chair of this WG might sometimes be needed for face to face meetings with government and regulatory officials from the RIPE service region. Or to have those interactions in their $dayjob and be able to update the WG about them.
Perhaps I’m guilty of naming names before the WG's clarified the requirements for its co-chairs. If so, maybe a discussion about that needs to reach consensus before the WG decides who the co-chairs should be.
-- Meredith Whittaker Open Research Lead Google NYC
On 1 Jun 2016, at 20:03, Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel@google.com> wrote:
Feel free to start a discussion about requirements, Jim. With the understanding that among those biggest requirements are: • Willing • Able to attend • Available Bicycle shedding other qualities may be fun, but I don't think useful as it pertains to making this selection.
Meredith, those three requirements are a given. Or should be. All of the candidates meet those criteria, modulo Analisa’s potential issues over travel funding. So if we start from that baseline, what additional attributes does the WG consider mandatory/desirable/optional for its co-chairs? What’s the ideal mix of skills and background? As a for instance, I could be a possible candidate because I’m willing, able to attend and available. [Others may well disgaree with that opinion.] But I am unsuitable as a co-chair for the WG. And I hope we can all agree on that. :-) FWIW, I can think of quite a few people in this Internet governance circus who would be willing, able to attend and available ...and yet be utterly unacceptable as a co-chair. I won’t name names: they rarely if ever surface at RIPE meetings anyway.
On 01-06-16 21:03, Meredith Whittaker wrote:
Bicycle shedding other qualities may be fun, but I don't think useful as it pertains to making this selection.
Bummer! Having lived in Amsterdam since 1997, I have become quite an expert on bicycle shed permits... Julf
On 1 Jun 2016, at 21:01, Jim Reid wrote:
Of the candidates that have emerged so far, I think the addition of Johan (Julf) and Achilleas would provide the right sort of balance and experience to complement what Meredith brings to the role.
After listening and contemplating, I agree with this. Three co-chairs with VERY different background and skill sets. Meredith, Julf and Achilleas. Good combo! Patrik
Patrik Fältström wrote:
Three co-chairs with VERY different background and skill sets. Meredith, Julf and Achilleas. Good combo!
wfm too. Nick
Jim, all,
Of the candidates that have emerged so far, I think the addition of Johan (Julf) and Achilleas would provide the right sort of balance and experience to complement what Meredith brings to the role.
I fully agree with this, but one thing I would like to stress to all those that have shown an interest in helping Meredith chair this WG is that you don’t need to be a co-chair to actively participate. Indeed you may have more time to participate if you’re not one of the co-chairs! Chairing the WG should be a choice of selecting (however you define ‘selecting’) a candidate that has already worked within the community. It’s not a glorious, well-rewarded job, it’s something you do in addition to the participation. I hope that all those that have shown an interest, whether from governments or the RIPE community, continue to help this WG and the RIPE community’s interactions with government and regulatory affairs. All the best, Rob
On 01-06-16 20:31, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
almost never too late:-)
True.
where you active at RIPE in the earlier days ? and if so where?
"It's complicated". The straight answer is "no, not formally". I didn't see a need for a formal involvement, as I knew pretty much everyone in the early days of RIPE. I worked with Axel Pawlik, Paul Rendek and Daniel Karrenberg in the EUnet days, and many of the early RIPE NCC employees used to work in my group first at EUnet and then KPNQwest.
so you're also active elsewhere in the Internet community, that's great!
Thanks - one of the benefits of having been around for far too long, and gotten involved in far too many things.
And with that said, think you'll be an excellent co-chair with Meredith and preferable one more :-)
I have to agree. :) Julf
participants (11)
-
Constanze.Buerger＠bmi.bund.de -
Gordon Lennox -
Jim Reid -
Johan Helsingius -
Maciej.TOMASZEWSKI＠ec.europa.eu -
Meredith Whittaker -
Nick Hilliard -
Patrik Fältström -
Rob Evans -
Roger Jørgensen -
Schaa, Tahar