Re: [members-discuss] [GM] Requirements and Expectations for Board Members and Candidates

Dear Ondrej, Thank you for this email on ncc-announce and from what I've read in the minutes of the EB, this has become quite a controversial topic within the EB already.. This shows in the minutes where it states : ( https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-165th-exe... <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-165th-executive-board-meeting> point 7.3 )
7.3 EB candidates assessment During EB#163, the Board asked the Managing Director to investigate mechanisms for the assessment of Executive Board candidates before an election. Remco van Mook left the meeting room during the discussion of this item. He requested that it be noted in the minutes that it was inappropriate for the Board to discuss this topic.
I can only guess on the actual reason for Remco to leave the room as this was brought to the table .. Could you express why the board decided to continue to discus the topic with an incomplete board, where putting this on the agenda was clearly upsetting one of the board members ? Was this because of the actual content of the proposal brought to the table by the MD (as he was tasked by preparing the topic as requested ) The topic by itself was requested by the EB, so it shouldn't have been such a controversial topic that an EB member should feel that it couldn't be discussed as is.. and needed to step out. I don't remember reading other EB meeting minutes where an EB member felt the need to step outside ... Was the proposal overreach by the MD, where the feedback / emotions after the investigation, which led to this topic, ( see https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2022/minutes-163rd-exe... <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2022/minutes-163rd-executive-board-meeting> point 13 and 14 ) weight to heavy on the actual deliverable that was put forward to the EB. And if so, why did the EB not corrected the MD on the work or handling, before discussing it further ? From what I see in the email that you send today, the proposal is looking to exclude WG Chairs (active members of the RIPE community) to not run for the EB... While these are some of the most active members of the community. Another suggestion from what I see is to limit the amount of people from the same country.. We've had Falk & CK (German) in the Board, Job, Remco & Raymond ( Dutch ), although Raymond has been living in Finland for years. Or are we talking about where they are residing .. in that case Salam (former EB member and running candidate) is residing in The Netherlands, so is Job & Remco ... Personally I would find it discriminating, if a good candidate would be disqualified, just by its country of origin, because someone in the EB happens to be already from the same country. (by birth or where he/she resides. ) Also removing the pool of WG Chairs is something I would be strongly against ... A lot of current / former board members have been WG Chairs .. They have the faith of the community, they know the community and that is why they get elected for the EB position ... By putting this apparently controversial topic in the EB now forward to the community, my question is, is the EB managing this topic sufficiently and the MD on the work on it .. before requesting a community about an (in my few) flawed proposal ? Regards, Erik Bais On 12/05/2023, 10:44, "ncc-announce on behalf of Ondřej Filip" <ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net> <mailto:ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:ncc-announce-bounces@ripe.net>> on behalf of exec-board-announce@ripe.net <mailto:exec-board-announce@ripe.net> <mailto:exec-board-announce@ripe.net <mailto:exec-board-announce@ripe.net>>> wrote: Dear all, This week, you will have seen an invitation to join the Executive Board at an Open House on Requirements and Expectations of Board Members and Candidates. I want to provide some context on why we are having this meeting and how your input can help the Board. There are several reasons why we feel that now is the right time to discuss the expectations that the RIPE NCC membership has of its Executive Board members, not least the fact that we are responsible for the good governance of the RIPE NCC. And while the members will always elect the Board, we want to look closely at the formal requirements for Board members to make sure those elected will be able to carry out the role effectively and play their part in the good governance of the RIPE NCC. We recently strengthened the processes around board candidacy by making amendments to the Articles of Association, which were approved by the membership. But we have seen recently in other RIR regions that there have been concerns raised about candidates for executive boards. This has made us pay extra attention to our own processes around board candidacy and membership. The responsibilities of the Board are also much greater now than they were five, ten or 20 years ago. The Board has oversight of an organisation that manages important and valuable resources for 20,000 members. It must deal with highly complex issues such as the impact of war and sanctions on the membership and the Internet, as well as ensure that service delivery is provided effectively and fairly across an incredibly diverse service region. Financial oversight is a big part of our governance, as demonstrated by the recent discussions about the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme. And we are also effectively responsible for the well-being of all the excellent staff who work hard to meet your needs. To add to this, an independent investigation was carried out into allegations of bullying and harassment of a RIPE NCC staff member by a Board member. The investigation found no evidence of a breach of the RIPE NCC Code of Conduct and the Board will respect the findings of that investigation. But this did force us to look at our current structures and ask ourselves how we could handle such a situation should something similar arise again, and whether having new requirements or restrictions in place would help. At our Board meeting in March, we discussed these issues and focused on whether there should be any new requirements, restrictions or expectations for those who sit on the Executive Board. The discussion covered many areas, including whether there should be restrictions on having more than one Board member from the same organisation or country, and whether it’s appropriate for Board members to sit on the boards of other Internet organisations. This discussion is noted in the minutes from our recent board meeting: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-165th-exe... <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-165th-executive-board-meeting> <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-165th-executive-board-meeting> <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-165th-executive-board-meeting>> Although we had a good discussion on these issues, we did feel it would be better to consult directly with the membership about these topics. Following this discussion, the Board could then propose changes to the Articles of Association affecting the make-up of the Board. Such changes would have to be voted on by the membership. At this stage, what we are looking for is your input and your ideas to help make sure that the Board of the RIPE NCC is set up to effectively represent your interests. So I ask you to please register for the Open House where we will present slides with topics for discussion and then open the floor for members’ input. https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-req... <https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-requirements-and-expectations-for-board-members-and-candidates> <https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-requirements-and-expectations-for-board-members-and-candidates> <https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/open-house/ripe-ncc-open-house-requirements-and-expectations-for-board-members-and-candidates>> Best regards, Ondřej Filip RIPE NCC Executive Board Chair RIPE NCC Executive Board - Functions and Expectations: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/ripe-ncc-executive-board-funct... <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/ripe-ncc-executive-board-functions-and-expectations> <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/ripe-ncc-executive-board-functions-and-expectations> <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/ripe-ncc-executive-board-functions-and-expectations>> Executive Board Liability: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/executive-board-liability <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/executive-board-liability> <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/executive-board-liability> <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/executive-board-liability>> Current Call for Executive Board Candidates: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2023/announcements... <https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2023/announcements/call-for-nominations-to-the-ripe-ncc-executive-board> <https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2023/announcements/call-for-nominations-to-the-ripe-ncc-executive-board> <https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2023/announcements/call-for-nominations-to-the-ripe-ncc-executive-board>>

Hi,
Personally I would find it discriminating, if a good candidate would be disqualified, just by its country of origin, because someone in the EB happens to be already from the same country. (by birth or where he/she resides. )
I agree, I don’t think it makes sense to limit this up-front. If the membership thinks there is a bias in the board composition they can vote for other candidates. I think this would only become a problem if some subset of the membership would have so many members that they can out-vote all other subsets and capture the board. But in that case we have other problems, and those subsets aren’t necessarily geographic.
Also removing the pool of WG Chairs is something I would be strongly against ... A lot of current / former board members have been WG Chairs .. They have the faith of the community, they know the community and that is why they get elected for the EB position ...
Very strong +1 on this one. Blocking the most active members of our community from volunteering for the board would be a big mistake… On the bigger topic of discussing options on EB candidate requirements, I am happy that the board is having research done on the topic. I was at the APNIC meeting at their latest election, and there was serious concern about capture of the board (see https://www.theregister.com/2023/02/15/apnic_election_controversy/ for the fireworks). I’m sad that Remco left the room, as I think his input would have been valuable. In the end, as the minutes confirm, this is a matter for the membership to decide on, and as long as that is the case the board investigating it and providing input to the membership is welcome in my opinion. One note: I have seen in the past that votes on NCC business have been “all or nothing” where the membership had the choice to either accept a proposal including all the bad bits, or reject it completely. Such a style of vote would be bad in my opinion on a sensitive topic such as this. While writing a proposal by committee is a guaranteed failure, I would encourage the board to discuss it and get rough consensus before bringing it to a vote. The current discussion about the charging scheme is certainly a step in the right direction. Cheers! Sander

On 12 May 2023, at 13:39, Erik Bais <erik@bais.name> wrote:
Thank you for this email on ncc-announce and from what I've read in the minutes of the EB, this has become quite a controversial topic within the EB already..
This shows in the minutes where it states : ( https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-165th-exe... <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/executive-board/minutes/2023/minutes-165th-executive-board-meeting> point 7.3 )
7.3 EB candidates assessment During EB#163, the Board asked the Managing Director to investigate mechanisms for the assessment of Executive Board candidates before an election. Remco van Mook left the meeting room during the discussion of this item. He requested that it be noted in the minutes that it was inappropriate for the Board to discuss this topic.
I can only guess on the actual reason for Remco to leave the room as this was brought to the table ..
Thanks for bringing it up… saw it in the 165 EB minutes but didn’t connect the dots right away.
Could you express why the board decided to continue to discus the topic with an incomplete board, where putting this on the agenda was clearly upsetting one of the board members ? Was this because of the actual content of the proposal brought to the table by the MD (as he was tasked by preparing the topic as requested )
It seems that we need a way to seek comment on the board meetings such as this. I also saw “therefore the Board agreed to discuss such requirements and restrictions with the members at a BoF or an Open House session. “ — the Open House is tomorrow; do we need a BoF to discuss restrictions on board candidates? My own inquiry is the pecularities of setting up an entity in the UAE (which was going on since 2022) - perhaps a membership can use more detail on the what, why, and how? At GM maybe? There was also a talk on possible suspension of candidates, in the same meeting, 7.2: "the Board asked the Managing Director to investigate whether it is possible to amend the Articles of Association in order to allow the Board to temporarily suspend board members until a final decision is made by the GM.” - the legal answer is, only GM can. May I ask why the board considered to implement a process to remove its own members? I can imagine the harm if conspiring group of its members does it.
[…] From what I see in the email that you send today, the proposal is looking to exclude WG Chairs (active members of the RIPE community) to not run for the EB... While these are some of the most active members of the community. Another suggestion from what I see is to limit the amount of people from the same country.. We've had Falk & CK (German) in the Board, Job, Remco & Raymond ( Dutch ), although Raymond has been living in Finland for years. Or are we talking about where they are residing .. in that case Salam (former EB member and running candidate) is residing in The Netherlands, so is Job & Remco ... Personally I would find it discriminating, if a good candidate would be disqualified, just by its country of origin, because someone in the EB happens to be already from the same country. (by birth or where he/she resides. )
Good point - and i can imagine in case of such restriction being implemented, a board member from a certain country can make impossible two candidates of same country to win elections. How can one solve a tie in such case?
Also removing the pool of WG Chairs is something I would be strongly against ... A lot of current / former board members have been WG Chairs .. They have the faith of the community, they know the community and that is why they get elected for the EB position ...
Agreed here as well.
By putting this apparently controversial topic in the EB now forward to the community, my question is, is the EB managing this topic sufficiently and the MD on the work on it
.. before requesting a community about an (in my few) flawed proposal ?
Regards, Erik Bais

Hi, On 15/05/2023 18:05, Dmitry Kohmanyuk via members-discuss wrote:
My own inquiry is the pecularities of setting up an entity in the UAE (which was going on since 2022) - perhaps a membership can use more detail on the what, why, and how? At GM maybe?
I second that. Best regards, Sebastien Brossier

On 2023-05-12 04:39, Erik Bais wrote:
From what I see in the email that you send today, the proposal is looking to exclude WG Chairs (active members of the RIPE community) to not run for the EB...
Could the EB please explain the logic behind excluding WG chairs from running for the EB? Thanks, Hank
participants (5)
-
Dmitry Kohmanyuk
-
Erik Bais
-
hank@interall.co.il
-
Sander Steffann
-
Sebastien Brossier