Notes from the RIPE Diversity Task Force on-line meeting, 27.6.2017
RIPE Diversity Task Force (on-line meeting, 27.6. 10:30 CEST) 1. Introduction of (new) members/volunteers =============== Participants were asked what brought them to this Task Force, what is there background and how do they want to contribute. Denesh Bhabuta (UKNOF / DNS-OARC): wants to learn from the RIPE Community; could possibly bring efforts back into other communities / conferences; also has a personal interest, as a father of a daughter. Donal Cunningham (HEAnet): notices that at most technical conferences he is surrounded by white males, and is interested in fixing that problem. Malcolm Hutty (LINX): background in Internet Governance and community organisations; was prompted by the the feedback at RIPE74, which was mostly welcoming the efforts to increase breadth of participation, but the comment was repeatedly made from the floor that RIPE participants "do not support diversity for diversity's sake", and he would like to address the concerns that underlie such a comment. Gergana Petrova (RIPE NCC / RACI): finds diversity an important issue; it's challenging to work on it without offending anyone; wants to work on improving the current situation. Brian Nisbet (HEAnet): is active in working on the issues of increasing diversity, and wants to contribute to it in RIPE Community (also PC "representative" and WG co-chair) Amanda Gowland (RIPE NCC): non-techie, helping organise these technical conferences; can help with writing (working as Technical Writer) Vesna Manojlovic (RIPE NCC): used to be an engineer, then trainer & now Community Builder; exposed to lack of diversity in hackers community, and helped addressing the issues there; wants to exchange experiences between them & RIPE community. Shane Kerr: interested in the topic of increasing diversity; did the measuring to find out what the actual situation is. (also WG co-chair) 2. Discussing the draft charter =============== A suggested draft charter was on the Etherpad. Malcolm Hutty made the most substantial recommendations on how to modify it and was asked to clarify his suggestions: http://etherpad.tools.ietf.org:9000/p/ripe-diversity-tf-2017 Malcolm said he thinks we should be careful not to be too political, but remain practical, and focus on the concrete actions. He added that we should strive towards increasing accessibility for everyone, instead of singling out specific groups and that we should be welcoming to everyone, regardless of differences. Gergana said she suggests to be more than just "welcoming”. Instead we should be "inviting" and "encouraging". Denesh noted that with the introduction of the RIPE Meeting Code of Contact, the RIPE NCC has already started the overall inclusion programme; now are are moving to the next steps. Shane was wondering why Malcolm also objected to using metrics. Malcolm responded that we should focus on individuals, and not divide people based on demographics or other grouping methods. Brian commented that no matter what, there are clear differences that place all people into certain groups. Malcolm said that he thinks we should not explicitly exclude anyone, and not do any active discrimination, but instead we should remove the reasons for individuals not taking part. Amanda asked Malcolm what he thinks the reasons are that RIPE's representation of women within the community is 5%, while the "tech industry" female participation rate is 15%? Malcolm thinks that we should investigate whether there are systemic reasons in RIPE's own practices and approaches that inhibit women from participating, and if so seek to address them. But we also need to be open to individual agency, and so setting any particular target for gender balance is inappropriate. Brian asked for clarification and wondered if Malcom means that "they are just not interested in taking part"? He thinks that we have passed that stage of discussing *if* there is a lack of diversity within RIPE Community - we are now working under the agreement that there *is* a need for increasing diversity. Donal added that it has been shown that companies with more diverse boards have greater "return on investment". Also, for our focus group, since we have limited resources (such as time and attention) , we need to choose which actions will be helpful to most people; therefore, we should focus on _groups_ rather than on individuals. Malcolm asked what is the meant by "under-represented groups" - and what would be the goal of balancing the "over-represented" and "under-represented"? Vesna: (long story...) 50% Malcolm said that he doesn’t think this is an acceptable goal, it is artificial and numerical; our goal should be for everyone to feel welcome and respected enough to take part, as individuals, and not as part of a grouping. Donal suggested that the RIPE community could commit to, at first, have at least *the same* ratio of female participation as the technical industry; and later, maybe, to even go for 50%. Vesna closed this agenda topic and suggested to continue to wordsmith the charter on the list. 3. Actions & milestones =============== Amanda reported that one of the suggested actions was to get more metrics. The registration for RIPE 75 will open soon, and there will be an opt-in question added at the end of the registration form. The text was shared on the diversity list and on RIPE Labs. The data collection was made as anonymous as possible (opt-in, collected by the 3rd party, no personal info requested, IP-tracking disabled) in order to minimise the danger for the participants. The goal is to collect at least some data about gender ratios of participation, in order to measure, over time, if our actions have improved the situation. Vesna added that furthermore, we can always repeat the analysis Shane did before RIPE 74 (based on public registration data and participant’s names. Shane confirmed that he would be willing to runt his again.. Action on Shane to repeat the analysis for RIPE 73 and RIPE74 participants, and share the results with the list. Amanda said that a new idea is to invite one of the women who lead the diversity workshop before RIPE 74 to submit a talk proposal for RIPE 75, on why diversity is important (this has been done in the meantime). Amanda also said that the RIPE NCC is investigating on-site child-care options for RIPE 76. Denesh noted that as a conferences organiser, he has been asked by female participants about policies for the breastfeeding in public. Since they want to be as inclusive as possible, they said that this is not a problem. Vesna asked if they have been looking into providing a separate room, for those women who prefer the privacy & comfort (for nursing), rather then accessibility & inclusion? But having a separate room might be a logistical challenge. Denesh responded that they always have a separate space available, for various purposes, so that can also be used for nursing in private. Donal volunteered to take on the suggestion of contacting Aaron Hughes, to work on the "mentoring" programme for newcomers. 4. Scheduling next meeting: =============== Next meeting: sometime in August. Here is the poll for dates & times: https://dudle.inf.tu-dresden.de/RIPE_Diversity_TF_August_2017/ 5. New actions: =============== Shane: re-run metrics Donal: contact Aaron Hughes All: work further on the charter Someone? : come up with the numbers of "tech industry gender ratio" Vesna: admin: send notes; schedule next meeting
Hi all, Have reached out to Aaron and we’re going to chat next week assuming our Calendars are aligned. D.
Hi, These are interesting notes. While I have not attended a RIPE meeting for a while, I would like to see RIPE sustain its success and agree that it can't do that if is not diverse. I know that there was some pushback against measurements and targets. However, I think it is impossible to make progress unless you measure and have a goal to work towards. As such, I would strongly support a set of diversity measurements based around a number of key criteria: - Age - Gender - National origin and/or country of residence Measurement should take place at each RIPE meeting. I also think you should consider applying the measurements to each WG, so that you know if there is a problem in one WG versus the others. The notes suggested benchmarking against a technology industry norm of 15%. I agree that relevant external comparisons are important, but I think you need to be careful to make sure that the comparison *is* relevant. Where does this 15% number come from and is it the same across the RIPE region? Do all countries see similar levels of female participation? If there is a difference why is there a difference? Ideally, the target for diversity should reflect the proportion of suitably qualified people. I don't know what this is. And this gets me to my main point, which is that I would like to see some analysis of the reason for the problem. RIPE must recruit from organizations that run networks, develop Internet technologies, and so on. What proportion of their technical employees are women? And what proportion of those women are in a position to attend a RIPE meeting? Attending a RIPE meeting is likely to cost an economy flight, a couple of cab trips, a hotel stay, a bunch of meals and maybe a visa application. That is a relatively large amount of discretionary spending. Do the women and other underrepresented groups in RIPE's target organizations have access to travel budgets? If they don't, then your approach needs to be radically different than if they do. By the way, I had heard the term intersectionality before but did not really know what it means. I have now looked at the Wikipedia article on it and don't understand why it would be controversial. However, I think that as a political theory jargon word it is unlikely to be widely understood, so you should consider alternative wording. Kind regards, Leo -----Original Message----- From: Diversity [mailto:diversity-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Vesna Manojlovic Sent: Thursday, July 6, 2017 5:36 AM To: diversity@ripe.net Subject: [Ext] [diversity] Notes from the RIPE Diversity Task Force on-line meeting, 27.6.2017 RIPE Diversity Task Force (on-line meeting, 27.6. 10:30 CEST) 1. Introduction of (new) members/volunteers =============== Participants were asked what brought them to this Task Force, what is there background and how do they want to contribute. Denesh Bhabuta (UKNOF / DNS-OARC): wants to learn from the RIPE Community; could possibly bring efforts back into other communities / conferences; also has a personal interest, as a father of a daughter. Donal Cunningham (HEAnet): notices that at most technical conferences he is surrounded by white males, and is interested in fixing that problem. Malcolm Hutty (LINX): background in Internet Governance and community organisations; was prompted by the the feedback at RIPE74, which was mostly welcoming the efforts to increase breadth of participation, but the comment was repeatedly made from the floor that RIPE participants "do not support diversity for diversity's sake", and he would like to address the concerns that underlie such a comment. Gergana Petrova (RIPE NCC / RACI): finds diversity an important issue; it's challenging to work on it without offending anyone; wants to work on improving the current situation. Brian Nisbet (HEAnet): is active in working on the issues of increasing diversity, and wants to contribute to it in RIPE Community (also PC "representative" and WG co-chair) Amanda Gowland (RIPE NCC): non-techie, helping organise these technical conferences; can help with writing (working as Technical Writer) Vesna Manojlovic (RIPE NCC): used to be an engineer, then trainer & now Community Builder; exposed to lack of diversity in hackers community, and helped addressing the issues there; wants to exchange experiences between them & RIPE community. Shane Kerr: interested in the topic of increasing diversity; did the measuring to find out what the actual situation is. (also WG co-chair) 2. Discussing the draft charter =============== A suggested draft charter was on the Etherpad. Malcolm Hutty made the most substantial recommendations on how to modify it and was asked to clarify his suggestions: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__etherpad.tools.ietf.org-3A9000_p_ripe-2Ddiversity-2Dtf-2D2017&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=tA1wKqsxvebJo3tMfJetoTJbY7EiAXGKPqEqBcE9PzE&m=KZqUDCK_u_ZgaGEDpUv1N1usgdw_XNj-e1m0UuR3QoI&s=kLZEjBagns6cI9d5KS6doAYQBftW1pMomZhGVMWu6TY&e= Malcolm said he thinks we should be careful not to be too political, but remain practical, and focus on the concrete actions. He added that we should strive towards increasing accessibility for everyone, instead of singling out specific groups and that we should be welcoming to everyone, regardless of differences. Gergana said she suggests to be more than just "welcoming”. Instead we should be "inviting" and "encouraging". Denesh noted that with the introduction of the RIPE Meeting Code of Contact, the RIPE NCC has already started the overall inclusion programme; now are are moving to the next steps. Shane was wondering why Malcolm also objected to using metrics. Malcolm responded that we should focus on individuals, and not divide people based on demographics or other grouping methods. Brian commented that no matter what, there are clear differences that place all people into certain groups. Malcolm said that he thinks we should not explicitly exclude anyone, and not do any active discrimination, but instead we should remove the reasons for individuals not taking part. Amanda asked Malcolm what he thinks the reasons are that RIPE's representation of women within the community is 5%, while the "tech industry" female participation rate is 15%? Malcolm thinks that we should investigate whether there are systemic reasons in RIPE's own practices and approaches that inhibit women from participating, and if so seek to address them. But we also need to be open to individual agency, and so setting any particular target for gender balance is inappropriate. Brian asked for clarification and wondered if Malcom means that "they are just not interested in taking part"? He thinks that we have passed that stage of discussing *if* there is a lack of diversity within RIPE Community - we are now working under the agreement that there *is* a need for increasing diversity. Donal added that it has been shown that companies with more diverse boards have greater "return on investment". Also, for our focus group, since we have limited resources (such as time and attention) , we need to choose which actions will be helpful to most people; therefore, we should focus on _groups_ rather than on individuals. Malcolm asked what is the meant by "under-represented groups" - and what would be the goal of balancing the "over-represented" and "under-represented"? Vesna: (long story...) 50% Malcolm said that he doesn’t think this is an acceptable goal, it is artificial and numerical; our goal should be for everyone to feel welcome and respected enough to take part, as individuals, and not as part of a grouping. Donal suggested that the RIPE community could commit to, at first, have at least *the same* ratio of female participation as the technical industry; and later, maybe, to even go for 50%. Vesna closed this agenda topic and suggested to continue to wordsmith the charter on the list. 3. Actions & milestones =============== Amanda reported that one of the suggested actions was to get more metrics. The registration for RIPE 75 will open soon, and there will be an opt-in question added at the end of the registration form. The text was shared on the diversity list and on RIPE Labs. The data collection was made as anonymous as possible (opt-in, collected by the 3rd party, no personal info requested, IP-tracking disabled) in order to minimise the danger for the participants. The goal is to collect at least some data about gender ratios of participation, in order to measure, over time, if our actions have improved the situation. Vesna added that furthermore, we can always repeat the analysis Shane did before RIPE 74 (based on public registration data and participant’s names. Shane confirmed that he would be willing to runt his again.. Action on Shane to repeat the analysis for RIPE 73 and RIPE74 participants, and share the results with the list. Amanda said that a new idea is to invite one of the women who lead the diversity workshop before RIPE 74 to submit a talk proposal for RIPE 75, on why diversity is important (this has been done in the meantime). Amanda also said that the RIPE NCC is investigating on-site child-care options for RIPE 76. Denesh noted that as a conferences organiser, he has been asked by female participants about policies for the breastfeeding in public. Since they want to be as inclusive as possible, they said that this is not a problem. Vesna asked if they have been looking into providing a separate room, for those women who prefer the privacy & comfort (for nursing), rather then accessibility & inclusion? But having a separate room might be a logistical challenge. Denesh responded that they always have a separate space available, for various purposes, so that can also be used for nursing in private. Donal volunteered to take on the suggestion of contacting Aaron Hughes, to work on the "mentoring" programme for newcomers. 4. Scheduling next meeting: =============== Next meeting: sometime in August. Here is the poll for dates & times: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__dudle.inf.tu-2Ddresden.de_RIPE-5FDiversity-5FTF-5FAugust-5F2017_&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=tA1wKqsxvebJo3tMfJetoTJbY7EiAXGKPqEqBcE9PzE&m=KZqUDCK_u_ZgaGEDpUv1N1usgdw_XNj-e1m0UuR3QoI&s=XcsTETgNLzPHAkbupCgW7hshKBg3wYBEXOqBY2wNlUA&e= 5. New actions: =============== Shane: re-run metrics Donal: contact Aaron Hughes All: work further on the charter Someone? : come up with the numbers of "tech industry gender ratio" Vesna: admin: send notes; schedule next meeting _______________________________________________ Diversity mailing list Diversity@ripe.net https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.ripe.net_mailman_listinfo_diversity&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=tA1wKqsxvebJo3tMfJetoTJbY7EiAXGKPqEqBcE9PzE&m=KZqUDCK_u_ZgaGEDpUv1N1usgdw_XNj-e1m0UuR3QoI&s=fwKex4YX_xIZ7NcO1Pig82YzO2Q0I_KIySPl3Xk9oEo&e=
Hi Leo On 07/07/2017 16:16, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Hi,
These are interesting notes.
While I have not attended a RIPE meeting for a while, I would like to see RIPE sustain its success and agree that it can't do that if is not diverse.
I know that there was some pushback against measurements and targets. However, I think it is impossible to make progress unless you measure and have a goal to work towards. As such, I would strongly support a set of diversity measurements based around a number of key criteria:
I have nothing against measurements. I have a lot against taking measurements in a way that is not anonymous, as in the case of this survey. That can be dangerous. cheers denis
Hi, Denis wrote:
I have nothing against measurements. I have a lot against taking measurements in a way that is not anonymous, as in the case of this survey. That can be dangerous.
I agree that the act of measurement and the use of the data need to be of the highest standards, so that people can feel confident that the data will not be misused. Are there not good practices that can be copied? Regards, Leo
Hi Leo On 07/07/2017 16:51, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Hi,
Denis wrote:
I have nothing against measurements. I have a lot against taking measurements in a way that is not anonymous, as in the case of this survey. That can be dangerous. I agree that the act of measurement and the use of the data need to be of the highest standards, so that people can feel confident that the data will not be misused. Are there not good practices that can be copied?
I put forward a suggestion based on the ICANN survey, but no one even commented on it. cheers denis
Regards,
Leo
Hi Leo, On 07/07/2017 15:16, Leo Vegoda wrote:
I know that there was some pushback against measurements and targets. However, I think it is impossible to make progress unless you measure and have a goal to work towards. As such, I would strongly support a set of diversity measurements based around a number of key criteria:
- Age - Gender - National origin and/or country of residence
I think your idea of "progress" presumes the answer. If you believe the goal is - as one participant espoused - to increase the level of female participation until 50% of RIPE participants are female (or more?), then measuring progress against this target is likely to help achieve it. However, if you believe that even having such a target is inappropriate, divisive and (frankly) another form of bigotry, and that the appropriate action from RIPE is to ensure that all participants are welcomed and respected regardless of their sex, then establishing such measurements pushes us down the wrong track. It also diverts attention from what should actually be done.
The notes suggested benchmarking against a technology industry norm of 15%. I agree that relevant external comparisons are important, but I think you need to be careful to make sure that the comparison *is* relevant. Where does this 15% number come from and is it the same across the RIPE region? Do all countries see similar levels of female participation? If there is a difference why is there a difference?
Ideally, the target for diversity should reflect the proportion of suitably qualified people. I don't know what this is.
The implication here appears to be that we should have one target for RIPE meetings held in Amsterdam and another for RIPE meetings held in Dubai. I would regard this as indicating a weakness in the concept of targeting.
By the way, I had heard the term intersectionality before but did not really know what it means. I have now looked at the Wikipedia article on it and don't understand why it would be controversial.
Intersectionality as a doctrine is closely associated with allegations that Western societies are riddled with oppression, often that they are uniquely oppressive (or at least that it is inappropriate to apply similar standards of critique to non-Western societies). It was invented for the purpose of "critique" of such alleged oppression, the latter term being used as a label for a form of hybrid between analysis and activism, where the analysis justifies the activism and the activism requires outcome-oriented (i.e. prejudiced) analysis. Examples of alleged forms of oppression include the one called "patriarchy" (which apparently claims that that all men are inherently part of an oppression system, a variant on "original sin"), that capitalism and property ownership are a form of white supremacy oppression, and other equally offensive doctrines. Needless to say, the targets of such accusations frequently consider such claims hurtful and unjust, and many who are not so targeted still regard them as political and aggressive. Of course, not every use of the term intersectionality implies the speaker endorses all the extreme theories with which it is sometimes coupled. But given its provenance its use would inevitably going to provoke and anger, even if not intended. That is why I recommended the term be avoided. I hope that provides some insight, Kind Regards, Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
Afternoon, On 07/07/2017 16:22, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Hi Leo,
On 07/07/2017 15:16, Leo Vegoda wrote:
I know that there was some pushback against measurements and targets. However, I think it is impossible to make progress unless you measure and have a goal to work towards. As such, I would strongly support a set of diversity measurements based around a number of key criteria:
- Age - Gender - National origin and/or country of residence
I think your idea of "progress" presumes the answer.
If you believe the goal is - as one participant espoused - to increase the level of female participation until 50% of RIPE participants are female (or more?), then measuring progress against this target is likely to help achieve it.
More than one. It's a great goal.
However, if you believe that even having such a target is inappropriate, divisive and (frankly) another form of bigotry, and that the appropriate action from RIPE is to ensure that all participants are welcomed and respected regardless of their sex, then establishing such measurements pushes us down the wrong track. It also diverts attention from what should actually be done.
Well, a) how can espousing that things like the operation of the Internet should involve a relatively even split of humanity be divisive? I don't understand the objection here. But also, we can do more than one thing at a time. We can measure *and* welcome. But equally we should be encouraging and enabling, not just welcoming.
The notes suggested benchmarking against a technology industry norm of 15%. I agree that relevant external comparisons are important, but I think you need to be careful to make sure that the comparison *is* relevant. Where does this 15% number come from and is it the same across the RIPE region? Do all countries see similar levels of female participation? If there is a difference why is there a difference?
Ideally, the target for diversity should reflect the proportion of suitably qualified people. I don't know what this is.
The implication here appears to be that we should have one target for RIPE meetings held in Amsterdam and another for RIPE meetings held in Dubai. I would regard this as indicating a weakness in the concept of targeting.
This is complex. 72 (or whatever) countries with vastly different cultures. We do what we can. We focus on the RIPE community and change the world by our actions. We don't try to change the world.
By the way, I had heard the term intersectionality before but did not really know what it means. I have now looked at the Wikipedia article on it and don't understand why it would be controversial.
Intersectionality as a doctrine is closely associated with allegations that Western societies are riddled with oppression, often that they are uniquely oppressive (or at least that it is inappropriate to apply similar standards of critique to non-Western societies). It was invented for the purpose of "critique" of such alleged oppression, the latter term being used as a label for a form of hybrid between analysis and activism, where the analysis justifies the activism and the activism requires outcome-oriented (i.e. prejudiced) analysis.
This is stunning derailing, Malcolm, sorry. Intersectionality is the concept that various forms of oppression & bigotry are all interlinked and, well, intersectional. It also recognises that the experience of a cis white woman is very different to that of a trans white woman and both of them will have a different experience to a cis or trans woman of colour (honestly regardless of location on the world - different, not necessarily better or worse). All of these groups will also have different experiences depending on their sexuality or social standing or any of a number of other factors. It is, in my opinion, a vital thing to take into account when looking at diversity.
Examples of alleged forms of oppression include the one called "patriarchy" (which apparently claims that that all men are inherently part of an oppression system, a variant on "original sin"), that capitalism and property ownership are a form of white supremacy oppression, and other equally offensive doctrines. Needless to say, the targets of such accusations frequently consider such claims hurtful and unjust, and many who are not so targeted still regard them as political and aggressive.
I do not believe that talking about the patriarchy (from which you and I both benefit immensely) is extreme or alleged. We can, of course, debate it for ages, but I don't feel that would be a useful use of our time or this mailing list. I certainly don't consider them offensive doctrines. I consider them facts of life that we need to examine and try to break down. Unless you're using your power actively for oppression then you aren't being evil, but we must examine what we get out of situations, how we benefit and how we can change the world to make it better for everyone.
Of course, not every use of the term intersectionality implies the speaker endorses all the extreme theories with which it is sometimes coupled. But given its provenance its use would inevitably going to provoke and anger, even if not intended. That is why I recommended the term be avoided.
I'm still not sure what term we should use instead, of course, nor why we should try to invent ones where perfectly good terms already exist. Brian
On 07/07/2017 16:58, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Intersectionality as a doctrine is closely associated with allegations that Western societies are riddled with oppression,
[snip]
This is stunning derailing, Malcolm, sorry. Intersectionality is the concept that various forms of oppression & bigotry are all interlinked and, well, intersectional.
To go from accusing me of derailing, in one sentence, to confirming my point in the next, is itself pretty stunning. I take this as your simply wishing to signal your distaste for my pointing out that this doctrine is considered controversial and offensive by many, because it is a doctrine with which you happen to sympathise.
I do not believe that talking about the patriarchy (from which you and I both benefit immensely) is extreme or alleged.
Well, we're obviously not going to agree about that. So we can either (a) argue about it interminably, or (b) agree that this isn't something for RIPE to getting into. If you fancy that there is an option (c), adopt your position and align the view that the patriarchy exists and "you and I benefit from it immensely", and ignore Malcolm's view to the contrary, well then we've got a problem.
I'm still not sure what term we should use instead, of course, nor why we should try to invent ones where perfectly good terms already exist.
Well I hope I've already shown that "intersectionality" is not a perfectly good term. As for a better term that already exists, I would suggest "sex discrimination": as long as RIPE avoids that, and treats everyone as an individual and not as a member of a preferred or dis-preferred identity group, then we will have done what we ought to do. Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
participants (6)
-
Brian Nisbet -
denis -
Donal Cunningham -
Leo Vegoda -
Malcolm Hutty -
Vesna Manojlovic