Hi Hank, When the GDPR requirements came into place, we needed a reason to publish personal information. And because we don't have a legitimate reason that would justify publishing this data on the website, we had to stop doing that. All the best, Fergal On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 7:43 AM Hank Nussbacher <hank@interall.co.il> wrote:

On 04/07/2024 17:56, Fergal Cunningham wrote:

Thanks for this analysis. I seem to remember that there used to be a breakdown by country of those who voted or registered to vote at each GM, yet I cannot find where that is. Any clue appreciated.

Thanks, Hank

...

Dear all,

We just published a RIPE Labs article that takes a closer look at the voter registration data from the recent May General Meeting:

https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/voting-analysis-gm-may-2024-a-first-... < https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/voting-analysis-gm-may-2024-a-first-...

...

If you have thoughts on the article, or suggestions on other aspects you'd like to see covered in future analyses, we'd love to hear them.

Best regards,

Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:

https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hank%40interall.co.il

​​So a LIR = "personal information" and yet you have a public whois?​-- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex@idgara.nl | +31651108221 On Fri, 05-07-2024 17h 08min, Hank Nussbacher <hank@interall.co.il> wrote:

On 05/07/2024 11:57, Fergal Cunningham wrote:

I did not realize that. Publishing data not showing how any LIR voted but rather showing that 110 German LIRs voted (not how they voted just that they had voted), 100 Russian LIRs voted, 80 Italian LIRs voted, etc. breaks GDPR?

Aggregated data like that breaks GDPR? How does the EU allow itself to publish voter turnout aggregated by country: https://results.elections.europa.eu/en/turnout/

I am confused.

Regards, Hank

...

Hi Hank,

When the GDPR requirements came into place, we needed a reason to publish personal information. And because we don't have a legitimate reason that would justify publishing this data on the website, we had to stop doing that.

All the best, Fergal

On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 7:43 AM Hank Nussbacher <hank@interall.co.il <" target="_blank">hank@interall.co.il>> wrote:

On 04/07/2024 17:56, Fergal Cunningham wrote:

Thanks for this analysis. I seem to remember that there used to be a breakdown by country of those who voted or registered to vote at each GM, yet I cannot find where that is. Any clue appreciated.

Thanks, Hank

> Dear all, > > We just published a RIPE Labs article that takes a closer look at the > voter registration data from the recent May General Meeting: > https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/voting-analysis-gm-may-2024-a-first-... <https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/voting-analysis-gm-may-2024-a-first-look-at-voter-make-up/> <https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/voting-analysis-gm-may-2024-a-first-... <https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/voting-analysis-gm-may-2024-a-first-look-at-voter-make-up/>> > > If you have thoughts on the article, or suggestions on other aspects > you'd like to see covered in future analyses, we'd love to hear them. > > Best regards, > > Fergal Cunningham > Head of Membership Engagement > RIPE NCC > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss@ripe.net <" target="_blank">members-discuss@ripe.net> > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hank%40interall.co.il <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hank%40interall.co.il>

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hank%40interall.co.il

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alex%40idgara.nl

On 08/07/2024 10:44, Fergal Cunningham wrote: Thanks. Exactly what I was looking for and couldn't find :-( -Hank

Hi Hank,

Sorry, I misunderstood what you needed. The list of countries and members who registered to vote for them is at the bottom of the main GM page: https://www.ripe.net/membership/gm/meetings/may-2024/ <https://www.ripe.net/membership/gm/meetings/may-2024/>

All the best, Fergal

On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 5:07 PM Hank Nussbacher <hank@interall.co.il <mailto:hank@interall.co.il>> wrote:

On 05/07/2024 11:57, Fergal Cunningham wrote:

I did not realize that.  Publishing data not showing how any LIR voted but rather showing that 110 German LIRs voted (not how they voted just that they had voted), 100 Russian LIRs voted, 80 Italian LIRs voted, etc. breaks GDPR?

Aggregated data like that breaks GDPR?  How does the EU allow itself to publish voter turnout aggregated by country: https://results.elections.europa.eu/en/turnout/ <https://results.elections.europa.eu/en/turnout/>

I am confused.

Regards, Hank

> Hi Hank, > > When the GDPR requirements came into place, we needed a reason to > publish personal information. And because we don't have a legitimate > reason that would justify publishing this data on the website, we had to > stop doing that. > > All the best, > Fergal > > On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 7:43 AM Hank Nussbacher <hank@interall.co.il <mailto:hank@interall.co.il> > <mailto:hank@interall.co.il <mailto:hank@interall.co.il>>> wrote: > >     On 04/07/2024 17:56, Fergal Cunningham wrote: > >     Thanks for this analysis. >     I seem to remember that there used to be a breakdown by country of >     those >     who voted or registered to vote at each GM, yet I cannot find where >     that >     is.  Any clue appreciated. > >     Thanks, >     Hank > >      > Dear all, >      > >      > We just published a RIPE Labs article that takes a closer look at >     the >      > voter registration data from the recent May General Meeting: >      > > https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/voting-analysis-gm-may-2024-a-first-... <https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/voting-analysis-gm-may-2024-a-first-look-at-voter-make-up/> <https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/voting-analysis-gm-may-2024-a-first-... <https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/voting-analysis-gm-may-2024-a-first-look-at-voter-make-up/>> <https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/voting-analysis-gm-may-2024-a-first-... <https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/voting-analysis-gm-may-2024-a-first-look-at-voter-make-up/> <https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/voting-analysis-gm-may-2024-a-first-... <https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/voting-analysis-gm-may-2024-a-first-look-at-voter-make-up/>>> >      > >      > If you have thoughts on the article, or suggestions on other aspects >      > you'd like to see covered in future analyses, we'd love to hear them. >      > >      > Best regards, >      > >      > Fergal Cunningham >      > Head of Membership Engagement >      > RIPE NCC >      > >      > _______________________________________________ >      > members-discuss mailing list >      > members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> >      > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> >     <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss>> >      > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hank%40interall.co.il <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hank%40interall.co.il> <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hank%40interall.co.il <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hank%40interall.co.il>> > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hank%40interall.co.il <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hank%40interall.co.il>

Hi Denys, Thanks for the feedback on the voting and registration requirements. It is useful to get that, and we take note of your proposals. I've talked to a lot of members who don't vote over the years, and the main reasoning I have heard is that it takes a lot of time that they don't have to get involved in RIPE NCC governance; that they don't feel comfortable voting without fully understanding the issues or knowing the Board candidates; that they are not authorised to vote for their company; and several have said that things seem to be run well and they trust their fellow members who do have time to get involved. But it certainly would be good to hear more from members who don't vote to better understand their reasons. The development of our voting over the years has been done with two-thirds majority votes from our members to change the Articles of Association. Similarly, members of other RIRs will have different opinions and needs, and their voting systems have developed accordingly. Regarding the voting period, it was a Board decision to open the voting after the deliberations are completed, so that members can decide how to vote after they have heard all arguments and discussions. On the voting method we use, I did an analysis on the voting methods for the Executive Board a couple of years ago that looked at some of the issues you raise and to see if the alternatives you mention might be better. You can see the summary of that in the minutes from the meeting that gives some of the the reasoning for the current IRV method: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2022/minutes-156th-exe... A more detailed list of the advantages to instant run-off voting are: - It closely replicates the system that was in place for many years before electronic voting was possible with the important aspect that it allows an absolute majority (more than 50%) to be achieved by winning candidates without the need for several rounds of voting. - It allows the election of multiple candidates in one ballot – we currently elect two or three Executive Board candidates per year. The IRV system allows us to do this at one General Meeting and with one ballot. - It ensures there is broad support for all elected candidates – the IRV system rarely elects people on the first round of voting but those elected need high preferences from a significant proportion of the registered voters. - It reduces the “wasted votes” factor – if a voter’s first choice is not elected, the voter still plays a part in choosing who will be elected. - It allows voters to give high preferences across various criteria – A voter can decide to vote for a known and trusted candidate but also give a high preference to someone who has skills they would like to see on the Board or who can serve a specific part of the service region. - It is a relatively simple system – most other forms of preferential voting have more complex quota requirements depending on the number of voters. With the first past the post (FPTP) system, these are some of the factors that made it unattractive for the RIPE NCC: - Candidates (especially in a three-seat election) could be elected with a very small number of votes, so there would be no more majority decisions on elected candidates. Without broad support for a candidate, they could be seen as having no great mandate to serve. - People could be discouraged from voting for certain candidates as a vote against a likely winner might be seen as a wasted vote. - We move from a situation where all votes can have impact to one where only votes for winning candidates have impact. In the example you mention from 2023, under FPTP the candidate would have been elected to the Board with 262 votes from a total of 1,841 votes cast. The instant run-off method ensured that the winning candidates achieved an absolute majority for their seats. I hope this helps with understanding why instant run-off voting was chosen, and feedback on the topic is always welcome. Best regards, Fergal On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 6:39 AM Denys Fedoryshchenko < nuclearcat@nuclearcat.com> wrote:

Hi!

Thanks for nice article and analysis.

Few comments:

...

8.5% might sound low, and in fact, that number is only a little below average for a May GM.

Actually, it always has the lowest turnout among RIRs (except for the last voting at LACNIC), and IMHO this is something that has to be fixed. And I believe some of the reasons are trivial, and it is not lack of your community efforts, but more fundamental reasons.

...

Throughout, we'll refer to the members that registered to vote in the May 2024 GM as *members that voted* and the rest as *members that didn’t vote*. In fact, of the members who registered to vote, only 84% went on to cast their votes. I would like to ask a separate question - why is registration necessary? Based on what I see in other RIRs (no registration) and voting history, registration was required when voting took place on-site. This was because, due to the number of registered people, it was necessary to rent a venue, etc. In my opinion, it is high time to cancel it and recover the missing 16% of the votes.

Additionally, I would like to note that other RIRs conduct voting over a week, rather than within 24 hours. It's not clear why RIPE NCC limit people to 24 hours (again, on-site voting legacy?). In my experience, its not enough. Also, subjectively, voting in other RIRs is made much easier; there are short instructions right in the voting interface. The fact that the voting process in RIPE requires much longer instructions only indicates that it is overcomplicated.

So my proposals are quite obvious: 1)Cancel registration 2)Extend voting duration to 1 week 3)Voting should be more intuitive

P.S. Not exactly related to the article, but I would like to speak separately about IRV.

As mentioned at RIPE-176 <https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-176/>, the initial version of the RIPE NCC bylaws used a simple majority voting system, where the number of votes depended on the size of the membership. This is similar to the systems used by ARIN and APNIC. The voting system was changed to IRV at the October 2009 General Meeting in RIPE-487 <https://www.ripe.net/membership/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2009/general-meeting-minutes/>, with the following explanation from the meeting minutes:

*Jochem explained that changes to the Articles of Association would be needed to support e-voting and also that this was a good time to introduce any housekeeping changes that were necessary.*

It is interesting to highlight that the voting system was changed to support e-voting, but it is not clear why IRV was chosen or if there was any public discussion or consultation about the voting system. In my personal opinion, under the pretext of e-voting, the system was changed to IRV, which is HUGE change, to more complex and less transparent to the average voter and introduces unfairness into the system. I also want to note that other RIRs did not need to change their voting systems when switching to online voting.

Moreover, RIPE uses an IRV configuration that allows 'centrists' to gain 'amplified voices' and leaves little chance even for moderate reformers. While IRV voting may initially foster political stability and moderate policies, it ultimately risks stifling innovation and reform, potentially leading to long-term stagnation and a failure to address emerging challenges.

As good example, in GM 2003 Fahad AlShirawi had change to win seat by simple majority, but no chances in IRV. I've done my own analysis, but it's not polished enough to publish. However, it's not difficult to perform this calculation.

On Thu, 2024-07-04 at 16:56 +0200, Fergal Cunningham wrote:

Dear all,

We just published a RIPE Labs article that takes a closer look at the voter registration data from the recent May General Meeting:

https://labs.ripe.net/author/ilke-ilhan/voting-analysis-gm-may-2024-a-first-...

If you have thoughts on the article, or suggestions on other aspects you'd like to see covered in future analyses, we'd love to hear them.

Best regards,

Fergal Cunningham Head of Membership Engagement RIPE NCC _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/nuclearcat%40nuclearc...