Hi Brian, On 03/10/2019 17:37, Brian Nisbet wrote:

Amanda,

Thanks for this.

I thought we did have a chair, and I thought that was Mirjam, but I acknowledge it's been a while since this was talked about.

Yes, I remember I chaired a meeting where it was decided not to have a chair :-) But for practical reasons and as a contact person for the RIPE Chair it might be good to choose a task force chair and best someone from the community and not the RIPE NCC.

However we had also tried to have as little... authority as possible, of course.

That said, should we be sending the May document or the more recent one to the NCC? And, unfortunately, of course, this means that we won't have anything to formally propose at RIPE 79, I suppose?

There is currently a speaking slot for the (chair of the) diversity task force during the community plenary on Thursday afternoon that could be used to present the main principles and changes in the document to the community (Hans Petter is going to contact the task force about this). But yes, it is probably not ready to come to a final decision at RIPE 79. Best regards, Mirjam

I will admit that this is quite late in the day for the NCC legal team to be asking for this. They had sight of the document in May and that would have been the time to start talking about an IA, not less than two weeks before a meeting. Do we know why this suddenly cropped up?

Thanks,

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@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

...

-----Original Message----- From: diversity <diversity-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Amanda Gowland Sent: Thursday 3 October 2019 13:16 To: diversity@ripe.net Subject: [diversity] Requesting Impact Analysis + Legal Review from the RIPE NCC on CoC 2.0

Hi all,

So, an update...

After speaking with RIPE NCC's legal team on next steps for the CoC, they advise that the Chair of this TF (which we don't have afaik) request an impact analysis and legal review of the RIPE CoC 2.0, which Brian shared on the ripe- list last May for comment: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting- code-of-conduct-2-0-draft

Could someone (Brian, Shane or Denesh) email legal@ripe.net with the link above to request this and cc the TF?

Now, prior to this info, I had been working (a lot) on adapting the 2.0 text to address the comments received here. I also felt that there was a lot of overlap between the CoC text and the CoC Team doc, so I merged them for clarity: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yqOUPR02SONuSt812cuOBkk_xnhjY zjdk9qmsJkcDdQ/edit

This is a version I'd like you to comment on, hopefully we can move forward...I hope we've addressed the concerns about appeals.

Happy for your feedback.

Kind regards,

Amanda

_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity

_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity

Hi Brian, I don't think it's legal's responsibility to come to us for the document though, it's on the TF to initiate that (I think?) Admittedly, I didn't really understand that there was a formal procedure in place to have that happen. I asked legal to review it once we had enough time to get some substantial feedback because that seemed to make sense but I'm informed that there also needs to be an impact analysis...so yeah, it looks like that will take some time unfortunately. It's important we get it right though and I certainly wouldn't want anyone to halt progress on such an important document on a technicality. Legal has been really quick with their feedback and incredibly helpful in making the 3.0 version more solid. They said, I'm told that because the 2.0 draft was the one sent to the ripe-list in May, that's the one we should be asking to review...not the updated 3.0 version where we've incorporated the feedback and comments (which was done openly on Google Docs and on this list, it should be noted). TBH, I'm not sure I see the logic here As far as transparency goes, I think we've done that. As far as I can see, we're being asked to follow the PDP on this? Legal explained that since we are asking the RIPE NCC to potentially take action in this CoC (for example, potentially removing someone from the meeting after a severe violation), there needs to be an impact analysis. Hope this clarifies. Thanks, Amanda On 03/10/2019 18:30, Brian Nisbet wrote:

...

-----Original Message----- From: Mirjam Kuehne <mir@ripe.net> Sent: Thursday 3 October 2019 16:57 To: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie>; Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net>; diversity@ripe.net Subject: Re: [diversity] Requesting Impact Analysis + Legal Review from the RIPE NCC on CoC 2.0

Hi Brian,

On 03/10/2019 17:37, Brian Nisbet wrote:

...

Amanda,

Thanks for this.

I thought we did have a chair, and I thought that was Mirjam, but I acknowledge it's been a while since this was talked about.

Yes, I remember I chaired a meeting where it was decided not to have a chair :-) But for practical reasons and as a contact person for the RIPE Chair it might be good to choose a task force chair and best someone from the community and not the RIPE NCC. I suspect it would. Of course the big question is "who"? For a variety of reasons I don't find myself in a position to chair the TF, nor do I feel I would be the right person to do so.

...

...

However we had also tried to have as little... authority as possible, of course. That said, should we be sending the May document or the more recent one to the NCC? And, unfortunately, of course, this means that we won't have anything to formally propose at RIPE 79, I suppose?

There is currently a speaking slot for the (chair of the) diversity task force during the community plenary on Thursday afternoon that could be used to present the main principles and changes in the document to the community (Hans Petter is going to contact the task force about this). But yes, it is probably not ready to come to a final decision at RIPE 79. Right, that would make sense. I am happy to work on such a presentation with people, but again we need different (and more diverse) faces on stage.

Thanks,

Brian

...

...

I will admit that this is quite late in the day for the NCC legal team to be asking for this. They had sight of the document in May and that would have been the time to start talking about an IA, not less than two weeks before a meeting. Do we know why this suddenly cropped up? Thanks,

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@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

...

-----Original Message----- From: diversity <diversity-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Amanda Gowland Sent: Thursday 3 October 2019 13:16 To: diversity@ripe.net Subject: [diversity] Requesting Impact Analysis + Legal Review from the RIPE NCC on CoC 2.0

Hi all,

So, an update...

After speaking with RIPE NCC's legal team on next steps for the CoC, they advise that the Chair of this TF (which we don't have afaik) request an impact analysis and legal review of the RIPE CoC 2.0, which Brian shared on the ripe- list last May for comment: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting- code-of-conduct-2-0-draft

Could someone (Brian, Shane or Denesh) email legal@ripe.net with the link above to request this and cc the TF?

Now, prior to this info, I had been working (a lot) on adapting the 2.0 text to address the comments received here. I also felt that there was a lot of overlap between the CoC text and the CoC Team doc, so I merged them for clarity:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yqOUPR02SONuSt812cuOBkk_xnhjY

...

zjdk9qmsJkcDdQ/edit

This is a version I'd like you to comment on, hopefully we can move forward...I hope we've addressed the concerns about appeals.

Happy for your feedback.

Kind regards,

Amanda

_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity

---

diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity

Hi,

What do other people think?

I’m not really surprised. Other non-policy documents have gone through the largely the same procedure. I suppose a heads-up would have been useful, but this could just be a mismatch of expectations — those in the NCC expect us to be using the PDP, we thought this was a parallel activity. When the only hammer you have is the PDP, every document looks like a policy. :-) I suspect getting consensus on v3 and getting the IA on that is the most likely way forward, in my limited understanding anyway. Cheers, Rob

Amanda, I would agree. Could someone who isn't me or Amanda, or another NCC staff member, do that, if at all possible? Thanks, 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@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

-----Original Message----- From: Amanda Gowland <agowland@ripe.net> Sent: Friday 4 October 2019 12:14 To: Rob Evans <Rob.Evans@jisc.ac.uk>; Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> Cc: diversity@ripe.net Subject: Re: [diversity] Requesting Impact Analysis + Legal Review from the RIPE NCC on CoC 2.0

Rob, Brian, all,

Agreed that it seems this work falls into a gray area and that we need more clarity on where the CoC falls into on the RIPE accountability map.

Clarity is always a good thing, so while the process may be delayed, I think we have probably helped in terms of finding a gap in the documentation/expectations on something that isn't PDP, isn't a RIPE NCC procedural document, etc.

So - bonus for the community at large but a bit of a bummer for us in getting this in place for RIPE 79.

Brian, I'm with you on the IA being done on 3.0...would seem weird to ask the NCC to do an IA on 2.0 when we have an improved, better 3.0 version that has taken into consideration the input from the community.

So - next steps are to reach out to HPH for the way forward here and report back to the list on the outcomes.

Many thanks,

Amanda

...

Hi,

...

What do other people think? I’m not really surprised. Other non-policy documents have gone through

On 04/10/2019 11:19, Rob Evans wrote: the largely the same procedure. I suppose a heads-up would have been useful, but this could just be a mismatch of expectations — those in the NCC expect us to be using the PDP, we thought this was a parallel activity.

...

When the only hammer you have is the PDP, every document looks like a policy. :-)

I suspect getting consensus on v3 and getting the IA on that is the most

likely way forward, in my limited understanding anyway.

...

Cheers, Rob

I would agree. Could someone who isn't me or Amanda, or another NCC staff member, do that, if at all possible?

I seem to be in a habit of stepping forward for things at the moment, so I can send an email to HPH if everyone else is OK with that (although I get the impression he is quite busy at the moment from some other correspondence). Are we asking what the right procedure would be? Or are we asking Hans Petter to agree that getting the IA and Legal advice on v3 is the right thing to do? Also, I see that Julia has just volunteered, so more than happy for it not to be me! Rob

There are no real ‘pits of bureaucrazy’ here. Just some questions on the proper process which are valid considering the sanctioning of violators in the document. There is nothing that prevents the task force to discuss the latest draft with the community in Rotterdam either. Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.

On 4. Oct 2019, at 13:36, Job Snijders <job@instituut.net> wrote:

 Folks, indeed, let’s get a move on. It would be a shame if this effort strands in the pits of bureaucracy!

Julia, thank you for stepping forward. _______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity

All, Thank you for all of eyeballs on this list - it helps a lot. I think we all agree - we need clarity on the process. I guess the good thing is we're trailblazers! Rob -- I think it's not either or, but both. We need clarity on what the right way forward is for these kinds of 'governance' documents outside the PDP (and hopefully this prompts the documentation or formalisation of that procedure) AND I think we need him to advise on our recommendation to have legal review the 3.0 version (which merges two documents both reviewed and commented by community members). As for how and if the IA comes into play, that's unclear. Job -- agreed, this shouldn't be held up. Julia -- thank you for offering to help. Yes, if you could email HPH noting the requests above, that would be great. Two steps forward, one step back...but still forward all the same and we learn as we go. Better for everyone. a On 04/10/2019 13:47, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:

Hi,

As Daniel already indicated: we (the community) might need a more formal process for agreeing on procedures and documents that are not policy. Rob calls them "parallel activity" below. Hans Petter referred to them as "Community Governance" at some point.

So no, I don't think anyone is expecting to apply the full PDP to the code of conduct, but since we don't have another clear process right now, maybe we can borrow some aspects from the PDP for now (such as the impact analysis).

I am not sure we really need to ask Hans Petter to ask the RIPE NCC to do an impact analysis. I think the task force can do that directly. But maybe I misunderstood and all the task force wants to get is clarity about the process from Hans Petter - which is probably something we'll have to develop as a community, but I assume Hans Petter has some ideas about it.

Cheers, Mirjam

On 04/10/2019 11:19, Rob Evans wrote:

...

Hi,

...

What do other people think? I’m not really surprised. Other non-policy documents have gone through the largely the same procedure. I suppose a heads-up would have been useful, but this could just be a mismatch of expectations — those in the NCC expect us to be using the PDP, we thought this was a parallel activity.

When the only hammer you have is the PDP, every document looks like a policy. :-)

I suspect getting consensus on v3 and getting the IA on that is the most likely way forward, in my limited understanding anyway.

Cheers, Rob

_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity

_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity

I consider it very important to use a solid procedure to develop the new CoC given the impact of sanctioning violators. At the conclusion of the work on the chair selection process we had some comments from people who expected such procedures to be developed using ‘the PDP’. Hans Petter was sympathetic to that, but the PDP, as it exists now, seems not fully suitable. At the same time, within the NCC, legal seems to be pushing for using ‘the PDP’ too. All this may contribute to some confusion and lack of clarity on how to develop formal procedures within RIPE. It remains important to have a clear process which everyone understands. So I suggest that the task force ’spokespeople’ seek guidance from Hans Petter on how to proceed. Daniel --- Sent from a handheld device.

On 3. Oct 2019, at 17:37, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:

Amanda,

Thanks for this.

I thought we did have a chair, and I thought that was Mirjam, but I acknowledge it's been a while since this was talked about.

However we had also tried to have as little... authority as possible, of course.

That said, should we be sending the May document or the more recent one to the NCC? And, unfortunately, of course, this means that we won't have anything to formally propose at RIPE 79, I suppose?

I will admit that this is quite late in the day for the NCC legal team to be asking for this. They had sight of the document in May and that would have been the time to start talking about an IA, not less than two weeks before a meeting. Do we know why this suddenly cropped up?

Thanks,

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@heanet.ie www.heanet.ie Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

...

-----Original Message----- From: diversity <diversity-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Amanda Gowland Sent: Thursday 3 October 2019 13:16 To: diversity@ripe.net Subject: [diversity] Requesting Impact Analysis + Legal Review from the RIPE NCC on CoC 2.0

Hi all,

So, an update...

After speaking with RIPE NCC's legal team on next steps for the CoC, they advise that the Chair of this TF (which we don't have afaik) request an impact analysis and legal review of the RIPE CoC 2.0, which Brian shared on the ripe- list last May for comment: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting- code-of-conduct-2-0-draft

Could someone (Brian, Shane or Denesh) email legal@ripe.net with the link above to request this and cc the TF?

Now, prior to this info, I had been working (a lot) on adapting the 2.0 text to address the comments received here. I also felt that there was a lot of overlap between the CoC text and the CoC Team doc, so I merged them for clarity: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yqOUPR02SONuSt812cuOBkk_xnhjY zjdk9qmsJkcDdQ/edit

This is a version I'd like you to comment on, hopefully we can move forward...I hope we've addressed the concerns about appeals.

Happy for your feedback.

Kind regards,

Amanda

_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity

_______________________________________________ diversity mailing list diversity@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/diversity