October 2019 - ripe-list - mailman.ripe.net

Call for Volunteers to Serve on the 2019-2020 RIPE NomCom
by Daniel Karrenberg 28 Oct '19

28 Oct '19

Dear RIPE Participant, RIPE will choose its next chair and a vice chair by way of a nominations committee. Ten volunteers, randomly selected from the community, will make that choice with the help of the whole community. These ten people plus a number of non-voting liaisons and advisors will form the NomCom. The NomCom will start to work around January 2020 and make its selection soon after the next RIPE meeting in May of that year. The job of the NomCom is to select people who have what it takes and also have the support of the community. As chair of the 2019-2020 Nomcom, my job is to organise the work and help the volunteers with making their choice. Therefore I call on you to volunteer. Ideally we are looking for about 100 volunteers representing a broad range of RIPE participants. Ten of those people will be randomly selected to serve on the NomCom. To qualify for serving as a voting volunteer you have to have attended three of the five most recent RIPE meetings including the meeting taking place this week in Rotterdam. For details about the procedures and duties of the NomCom you may refer to https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-727 and https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-728. The deadline for volunteering is Sunday November 10th 2019. The only way to volunteer is by using the form at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ripenomcom Daniel Karrenberg Chair of the 2019-2020 RIPE NomCom

2 2

RIPE 79 thank you
by Hans Petter Holen 26 Oct '19

26 Oct '19

Dear colleagues, The RIPE 79 Meeting in Rotterdam came to a successful end last Friday. I'd like to thank all of you that took part in the meeting on site and remotely. It was a very successful RIPE Meeting with 736 attendees checked in, from 59 countries, 187 of whom were joining us for the first time. This time, we celebrated 10 years of RIPE Labs, kicked off the RIPE Chair election process at the RIPE community plenary, and said farewell to Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC Managing Director, who announced that he will step aside for a new generation of leaders after 20 years of service. We also discussed the IPv4 run-out and what it means for you, the update on the Code Of Conduct (CoC), and the upcoming launch of the Certified Professionals Programme. At the meeting, we received a lot of valuable feedback from you. The meeting organising team is now reviewing the completed forms and will make sure that actions are taken where possible. You can read the meeting report at: https://ripe79.ripe.net/programme/report/ Archives of all the meeting's presentations are online: https://ripe79.ripe.net/archives/ RIPE 80 will take place in Berlin, Germany from 11-15 May 2020: https://ripe80.ripe.net/ See you soon! Best regards, Hans Petter Holen RIPE Chair

1 0

CoC and RIPE meetings
by Sascha Luck [ml] 22 Oct '19

22 Oct '19

WARNING: This post contains IRONY and, despite great care having been taken in producing it, may contain traces of SARCASM! RIPE meetings, at least to me, have become more boring and unedifying since my first one (pretty sure it was RIPE-32). This CoC is a great idea to make those meetings more interesting again. It creates an opportunity to play a number of thrilling and exciting games: RIPE::Moscow Rules - Spot the Informer: Look around you in sessions and at lunch! Can you spot the CoC-Stasi? - Countersurveillance: Spot and evade surveillance by making Surveillance Detection Runs through the meeting venue! - Clandestine Comms: Communicate covertly with other Dissidents! Use dead drops, brush passes and encrypted wifi! - Busted: Tell a joke to someone you trust and find out they've been working for the Stasi all along! - Do Unto Others: Report your colleague before they report you! Prizes: If you make it to Friday without being reported to the CoC-Stasi, you may come back to play at the next meeting. If not, you are burned and banned from playing. But do not despair: you can still try and play again at PRO level: - Incognito: Construct your legend and use it to try to infiltrate a meeting despite having been burned before! Hell I might even go to a meeting again myself and try my hand at tradecraft! All humour aside: Abolish RIPE meetings. They do not serve any purpose (anymore) that cannot be served online more easily and less expensively. The NCC has budgeted a cool EUR 2.18 million for meetings in 2020[1] That is a rough EUR100 per member now and likely to be significantly more in the future. They are also, as we have been told again and again, horrible events, attended by monsters, where nobody in their right mind wants to go. I really don't know why any member should want to pay for *that* So abolish them. That should also obviate the need for a Code Of Conduct and its enforcers. rgds, Sascha Luck [1] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2019/draft-ri…

2 1

CoC and the PDP
by Sascha Luck [ml] 22 Oct '19

22 Oct '19

All, the CoC draft version 3.0 [1], while it is called the "RIPE Meeting Code of Conduct", makes reference to the PDP as detailed below. - in "Scope" it claims authority over "RIPE mailing lists and the RIPE Forum" - "In cases where a report involves a RIPE Working Group Mailing List, the RIPE CoC Team will consult with the respective RIPE Working Group Chairs to gather context or any other relevant information that may help with its investigation." - One of the possible sanctions described is: "Not allowing someone to participate further in RIPE Meetings and/or *other RIPE community spaces*, for a set period or an indefinite period" Generally the tenor of the document is that, yes, it is intended to apply to the PDP-relevant processes and spaces and I don't think that fact is disputed. This is fundamentally incompatible with ripe-1 and ripe-710. If you, like me, consider those documents our "constitution", this CoC violates the letter as well as the spirit. If this reads like politics, that is because it *is*. 1) I consider ripe-1 and ripe-710 the "constitution" that provides for all of the below[2][3] 2) I consider the PDP and its WG mailing lists our "legislative". 3) The RIPE NCC could, in a very loose sense, be called our "executive". Like any democratic executive, it governs by the consent of the governed and is charged with implementing policy made through the PDP. 4) I consider the WG chair collective as some sort of combined "Speaker of Parliament", "Head of State" and "Constitutional Court". Their purpose is to steer the PDP and ensure that processes are followed in accordance to ripe-710 and ripe-1. They also determine that a consensus has been reached. (They "sign a proposal into law", so to speak.) 5) Through the PDP policy is developed, policy that affects every internet user in the RIPE Service Region. It affects more people and organisations than any law made even in the European Parliament. 6) According to ripe-710, the PDP is "open to all", "transparent", "from the bottom up" and "Conclusions are reached by consensus". To me, this means that every voice that wishes to speak must be heard. 7) Policy proposals, "bills" in other words, are often contentious, much like proposed law in other venues. Debate has, in the past, often been robust, raucous and occasionally vociferous. This is as it should be, this broad a community will rarely be of one mind and people have different ideas. Dissent, as in any democracy, is essential, even more so in a consensus-based system. How does the proposed CoC affect all this? For one, it is not transparent: Decisions are made behind closed doors, decisions that will - the draft document is clear on this - lead to voices being silenced and being silenced *silently*. It is not "open to all": it is only open to those who have not fallen afoul of the CoC or its enforcers. It is not consensus-based: "consensus of the approved" is worthless. It is not "bottom-up": the CoC Team sits at the very top of the chain and determines who can be a member of the RIPE community and who can't. Finally, it is open to abuse and, arguably, *designed* to be abused. It opens the way to anyone who is not happy ("comfortable" in the words of the draft) with the outcome or direction of a PDP discussion to rely on anonymous denunciation and intransparent processes to have all dissent silenced. The draft contains no reference to fairness or to a right of the accused to be heard and to defend themselves, which is a perversion of natural justice[4]. There is some kind of right-of-appeal, but it's an appeal to the same people who issued a "conviction" in the first place. Applied to the PDP and its participants, this, in political terms, is a putsch. It establishes a cabal that has the power to determine who may participate in the PDP in the first place. This may lead to the establishment of a sham consensus as all dissenting voices have been silenced, which the remaining community may not even be aware of. Policy developed under this system should be considered in violation of ripe-1 and ripe-710 and thus "unconstitutional". I'm not sure where the NCC stands in regard to obligations imposed on it by illegitimately created policy. This may be a question for the membership. There was a call for solutions, rather than just complaints, earlier. In this spirit I offer two possibilities: 1) Apply a "parliamentary privilege"[5] to PDP discussions. This means that only the WG chair collective has jurisdiction over PDP discussions and can "punish" participants - but with full transparency. 2) Let the "CoC team" investigate complaints but leave any decisions up to the WG chair collective. Again, any bans, temporary, or permanent must be fully transparent. As an aside, has anyone considered the difficulty of enforcing something like this on MLs where no identification requirement exists and someone "banned" can just re-sub under a different name/email address? In any case, I'd like to hear some discussion on this. Speak up. please. It may be the last chance you have. rgds, Sascha Luck [1] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-meeting-code-o… [2] https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/roundtable/march-2005/presentatio… [3] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege

7 10

Towards a more inclusive community
by Job Snijders 21 Oct '19

21 Oct '19

Dear all, I've been observing various efforts towards constructing a safe and inclusive environment both at RIPE meetings and our online platforms. I appreciate these efforts, however, I have some concerns with the process and our ability to execute. A careful observer may see that the next generation of Internet engineers is not quite like the current establishment. I believe this diversity needs to be acknowledged in our policies. We owe it to them to create an environment that contributes to their comfort and well being. I recorded some thoughts on my way to RIPE - https://youtu.be/6_dLgcfv8kU Kind regards, Job

10 12

Re: [ripe-list] [Fwd: Re: CoC and the PDP]
by Amanda 21 Oct '19

21 Oct '19

Alex, While I'm happy to see that the CoC is receiving more input, perhaps you are not aware that this whole process has been going on for over a year, discussed transparently on the list with updates at the subsequent RIPE Meetings. The statistics on the process, edits, participation are in the slide deck that the TF presented on Thursday. The community HAS come up with a CoC, we've been working on it for awhile. We are not asking for the entire thing to be scrapped - that would be a huge setback to the community - and I think it's becoming more evident that we need a strong mechanism in place to protect people *now*. Did you watch the TF update at RIPE 78? Did you see the statistic about how many people reported being harassed - 38% - that's almost 4 in 10 people. A handful of people have been brave enough to come forward with their stories - which is absolutely terrifying to do, I may add - but then think about how many people haven't come forward. The CoC is not set in stone. We have repeatedly said this - this is new for the community and it is likely that we will discover that some things need to be tweaked. The last version of the document was already heavily reviewed by RIPE NCC Legal (see my previous messages on the diversity TF for that) - but there was confusion on the process because this document is different than anything that's come before and so we sought clarity from Hans Petter before moving forward. You are essentially making suggestions for things that we have already been doing. I believe - and many others have already voiced this - that there is strong support for this CoC. Sure, finessing and clarifying parts here and there, but I strongly disagree with your suggestions below. Amanda On 20/10/2019 22:31, Alex de Joode wrote: -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221 ------------------------------ *Subject:* Re: [ripe-list] CoC and the PDP *From:* Alex de Joode <adejoode(a)idgara.nl> *Date:* Sun, 20-10-2019 22h 29min *To:* Erik Bais <ebais(a)a2b-internet.com> *Cc:* Leslie <geekgirl(a)gmail.com>, "Sascha Luck [ml]" <lists-ripe(a)c4inet.net>, RIPE List <ripe-list(a)ripe.net> On Sun, 20-10-2019 19h 05min, Erik Bais <ebais(a)a2b-internet.com> wrote: Hi, I've been in the RIPE community and in the Dutch NOG community for quite a long time ... [..] On the topic back to the CoC ... I understand the requirement and urge us to proceed with clear version to move forwards. One of the items I would like to address is that we have in our community quite some people that may be on the autism spectrum or on the edge of it .. They might have some issues with deciding on what is socially acceptable or what the consequences are of certain text in the CoC .. They might not be able to decide, based on the text what is acceptable behaviour .. but not on a predatory way .. I would strongly suggest that we try to include them as much in these discussions and perhaps even better, ask some if they would be willing to proof read the document and provide feedback on what they think based on the CoC. If their reaction is going to be, I don’t understand the consequences of the document and I will just not give a hand or speak to someone when I'm at the RIPE meeting, or not come at all, we may need to look at the wording. On the topic of this should go through the PDP ? ... I think that the RIPE NCC should have a strong CoC ( that should also include the trainings and member lunches btw, not only the meetings.. ) The community can provide input, but as the official organiser, the NCC MUST (in my opinion) take a legal liability point here and draw the line of what is acceptable behaviour .. I think the NCC MUST take a lead here, with the input from the community and have the final say here and implement the new CoC asap. Regards, Erik Bais I know from stories of (former) co-workers who attended the same event(s) as I did, they did not feel comfortable and left the venue early. (me wondering where they were). This makes they were not particularly thrilled to join the next venue. So this issue is real issue, and it needs resolving. Question is, how do we solve it, or better how do we approach this as a problem. A good Code of Conduct clearly spells out what behaviour is (un)acceptable, and also gives clear guidelines on how to report a (percieved) incident. The current CoC lacks this. It's reads more as an activist pamphlet and an instruction guide to the "enforcement team". It also totally fails to protect the rights of the 'accused' (yes they have rights) and does not at all provide for 'due process'. Given the a-typical nature of tech conferences with, as Erik already pointed out, an over-representation of people who boarder in the spectrum, I feel only a CoC will not do. Therefor I suggest the following: 1. The community should come up with a specification for a CoC (what needs to be in it) 2. RIPE NCC come up with a text 3. The community and RIPE NCC come up with mitigating actions (akin to 'security by design'), are there ways to organise RIPE meeting this abuse/behaviour cannot happen. 4. Maybe investigate into introducing an 'Ombudsman'-like function. -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221

2 1

[Fwd: Re: CoC and the PDP]
by Alex de Joode 20 Oct '19

20 Oct '19

-- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221 Subject: Re: [ripe-list] CoC and the PDP From: Alex de Joode <adejoode(a)idgara.nl> Date: Sun, 20-10-2019 22h 29min To: Erik Bais <ebais(a)a2b-internet.com> Cc: Leslie <geekgirl(a)gmail.com>, "Sascha Luck [ml]" <lists-ripe(a)c4inet.net>, RIPE List <ripe-list(a)ripe.net> On Sun, 20-10-2019 19h 05min, Erik Bais <ebais(a)a2b-internet.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I've been in the RIPE community and in the Dutch NOG community for quite a long time ... > [..] > On the topic back to the CoC ... I understand the requirement and urge us to proceed with clear version to move forwards. > > One of the items I would like to address is that we have in our community quite some people that may be on the autism spectrum or on the edge of it .. > They might have some issues with deciding on what is socially acceptable or what the consequences are of certain text in the CoC .. > They might not be able to decide, based on the text what is acceptable behaviour .. but not on a predatory way .. > > I would strongly suggest that we try to include them as much in these discussions and perhaps even better, ask some if they would be willing to proof read the document and provide feedback on what they think based on the CoC. > > If their reaction is going to be, I don’t understand the consequences of the document and I will just not give a hand or speak to someone when I'm at the RIPE meeting, or not come at all, we may need to look at the wording. > > On the topic of this should go through the PDP ? ... I think that the RIPE NCC should have a strong CoC ( that should also include the trainings and member lunches btw, not only the meetings.. ) > The community can provide input, but as the official organiser, the NCC MUST (in my opinion) take a legal liability point here and draw the line of what is acceptable behaviour .. > > I think the NCC MUST take a lead here, with the input from the community and have the final say here and implement the new CoC asap. > > Regards, > Erik Bais > I know from stories of (former) co-workers who attended the same event(s) as I did, they did not feel comfortable and left the venue early. (me wondering where they were). This makes they were not particularly thrilled to join the next venue. So this issue is real issue, and it needs resolving. Question is, how do we solve it, or better how do we approach this as a problem. A good Code of Conduct clearly spells out what behaviour is (un)acceptable, and also gives clear guidelines on how to report a (percieved) incident. The current CoC lacks this. It's reads more as an activist pamphlet and an instruction guide to the "enforcement team". It also totally fails to protect the rights of the 'accused' (yes they have rights) and does not at all provide for 'due process'. Given the a-typical nature of tech conferences with, as Erik already pointed out, an over-representation of people who boarder in the spectrum, I feel only a CoC will not do. Therefor I suggest the following: * The community should come up with a specification for a CoC (what needs to be in it) * RIPE NCC come up with a text * The community and RIPE NCC come up with mitigating actions (akin to 'security by design'), are there ways to organise RIPE meeting this abuse/behaviour cannot happen. * Maybe investigate into introducing an 'Ombudsman'-like function. -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | +31651108221

1 0

2019 NRO NC Election Results
by Axel Pawlik 18 Oct '19

18 Oct '19

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce that Filiz Yilmaz was re-elected to the Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO NC) at a plenary session of the RIPE 79 Meeting in Rotterdam on 18 October 2019. After completion of her current term on 31 December 2019, Filiz will begin another three-year term from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2022. Details on the election process and the NRO NC are available online: https://www.ripe.net/nro/nro-rc/nominations2019 We would like to congratulate Filiz on her appointment. Best regards Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE 79 Highlights - Day 4
by RIPE NCC Event Team 18 Oct '19

18 Oct '19

Dear Colleagues, The fourth day of RIPE 79 had 736 attendees checking in, including 188 newcomers. Yesterday was the second day of the Working Groups (WG): Anti-Abuse, IPv6, Routing, IoT, MAT and Database. For the first time, we held the RIPE community plenary - a forum to discuss matters that effect the community. The session was very well attended and can be viewed online. The highlights of Thursday are available at: https://ripe79.ripe.net/programme/report/#thu Today's the last day of the RIPE Meeting. If you can't attend in person, you can participate remotely: https://ripe79.ripe.net/live/main/ Stay tuned to what's happening at RIPE 79 by following @RIPEMeeting on Twitter and using the #ripe79 hashtag. Kind regards, Martina de Mas Event Organiser RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [ripe-list] [diversity] [comms-circle] Towards a more inclusive community
by Hank Nussbacher 17 Oct '19

17 Oct '19

On 17/10/2019 17:32, Julia Freeman wrote: Julie, at no time did I say it is not happening. I just said that *I *am clueless about it since I didn't see it or hear about it. Now that you have come forward as well as Jordi, hopefully people will be kinder and more importantly, if you see such behavior being imposed on someone else, and you are a bystander, then you should say something - not only the victim. -Hank > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 04:10:47PM +0200, Amanda Gowland wrote: >> On 17/10/2019 16:08, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >>> On 17/10/2019 17:00, Leslie wrote: >>> >>> Indeed. I am clueless since I haven't seen a single incident >>> message among the various mailing lists. I would expect that RIPE >>> should name and shame those harassing people at meetings. I am >>> truly speechless that this goes on in 2019. >> I, too, am speechless. > What always amazes me with these things, whether it's at a ripe level, or > as we've seen wider in society. "But I haven't seen it" > >>>> Perhaps you are not the one being harassed and the folks who are >>>> haven't told you about their experiences. >>>>> I have not been to as many meetings as you but I have never seen any >>>>> incident, even in the slightest, where the people attending were acting >>>>> inappropriately in any sort of way. I consider RIPE meetings >>>>> extremely safe and inclusive, so just paint me clueless as to what the >>>>> issue is. > I've been to exactly 1 ripe meeting. Ripe 77. > > Within 3 minutes of arriving, while in the queue to pick up my badge, the > guy behind me in the queue was hitting on me and making me feel > uncomfortable. > > Three. > > Minutes. > > Part of what we are dealing with here is the "acting inappropriately in > any sort of way". What you consider appropriate behaviour may not be the > same as what I consider appropriate. > > While in the diversity lunch, there was a disagreement between myself and > another attendee. Someone who I've been told is known for being a pain. > That interaction left me stood outside the room in tears being comforted > by one of the approved contact people. I spent the rest of the event > trying to avoid being anywhere near that individual. > > It was suggested by one speaker that people talk to those in minorities > about the harrassment we experience both at RIPE and as members of the > wider tech community. Don't, if we want to volunteer the information we > will. But for most of us, we don't want to. We don't want to have to > relive it to tell it every time. > > I'm sat here at my laptop at home, watching the live stream, writing this, > in tears, as I relive the experiences. > > It hurts even more when people say "I've not seen it, so it can't be > happening". It devalues our experience. It's basically gaslighting. > > I don't want to talk about this shit. I don't want to be the one who has > to go to tech conferences and do presentations on how we can make a nicer > environment for everyone. But I realise that if I don't speak up, then I'm > doing a disservice to those who come after me. > > You may not have experienced it. You may not have seen it. But its there. > > Believe us. > > J > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFdqHth42M0lILkmGIRAlsHAKCO+inrLZqMiuVm+0frOdVZuQO2yQCgrFco > GohEUBgA3N2Uzy7ck9bAo2E= > =JnLM > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >

1 0