Last Call for Draft: NRO NC Election Process (v3)
Dear colleagues, Since version 2 of the Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO NC) Election Document was published [1], we received one suggestion for clarification. No other concerns or comments were submitted. Following this suggestion, we changed “last ” to “previous” in the following sentence: "Have attended (registered and checked-in for) at least one out of the previous eight RIPE Meetings." This is therefore a LAST CALL for comments for the final version of this document [2], to expire on Monday, 23 October at 06:00 UTC. At the same time, I would like to draw your attention to the call for nominations to fill two seats on the NRO NC that is still open until 30 October 2023. Kind regards, Mirjam ===== [1] Announcing Updated NRO NC Election Process (v2) https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2023-September/002998.html [2] Updated NRO NC Election Process (v3) https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/draft-... [3] NRO NC Nominations 2023: Call to Fill Two Seats https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2023-September/003001.html
HI, Thanks for this Mirjam. I can’t seem to find the link to the role description, would you mind sharing this? I think this needs to be linked from the election process as candidates need to understand what role they are undertaking as it at times does have a rather high workload (in relation to the election of the ICANN board seats 9 and 10.). Also, I think that if we agree that voting eligibility should be having attended at least one RIPE meeting in the past, shouldn’t we add this as a very bare minimum criterion for the candidate eligibility as well? (I would in fact say “having attended at least three previous RIPE meetings, but I don’t have strong opinions on the exact number”.) Kind regards, Nurani
On 6 Oct 2023, at 09:41, Mirjam Kuehne <mir@zu-hause.nl> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Since version 2 of the Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO NC) Election Document was published [1], we received one suggestion for clarification. No other concerns or comments were submitted.
Following this suggestion, we changed “last ” to “previous” in the following sentence:
"Have attended (registered and checked-in for) at least one out of the previous eight RIPE Meetings."
This is therefore a LAST CALL for comments for the final version of this document [2], to expire on Monday, 23 October at 06:00 UTC.
At the same time, I would like to draw your attention to the call for nominations to fill two seats on the NRO NC that is still open until 30 October 2023.
Kind regards, Mirjam =====
[1] Announcing Updated NRO NC Election Process (v2) https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2023-September/002998.html
[2] Updated NRO NC Election Process (v3) https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/draft-...
[3] NRO NC Nominations 2023: Call to Fill Two Seats https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2023-September/003001.html
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list
Hi Nurani, Thanks for reviewing the document and for your constructive suggestions throughout the process. Please see some comments below. On 06/10/2023 14:05, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
HI,
Thanks for this Mirjam.
I can’t seem to find the link to the role description, would you mind sharing this? I think this needs to be linked from the election process as candidates need to understand what role they are undertaking as it at times does have a rather high workload (in relation to the election of the ICANN board seats 9 and 10.).
As suggested earlier, we created this page that contains general information about the NRO NC including a list of responsibilities: https://www.ripe.net/participate/internet-governance/internet-technical-comm... The link to the page is listed under References in Appendix A of the document. I'll see how we can make this more visible.
Also, I think that if we agree that voting eligibility should be having attended at least one RIPE meeting in the past, shouldn’t we add this as a very bare minimum criterion for the candidate eligibility as well? (I would in fact say “having attended at least three previous RIPE meetings, but I don’t have strong opinions on the exact number”.)
So far I believe the community felt that candidates who don't have the necessary skills and background will mostly likely not receive many votes. But let's see what others say. Kind regards, Mirjam
Kind regards,
Nurani
On 6 Oct 2023, at 09:41, Mirjam Kuehne <mir@zu-hause.nl> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
Since version 2 of the Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO NC) Election Document was published [1], we received one suggestion for clarification. No other concerns or comments were submitted.
Following this suggestion, we changed “last ” to “previous” in the following sentence:
"Have attended (registered and checked-in for) at least one out of the previous eight RIPE Meetings."
This is therefore a LAST CALL for comments for the final version of this document [2], to expire on Monday, 23 October at 06:00 UTC.
At the same time, I would like to draw your attention to the call for nominations to fill two seats on the NRO NC that is still open until 30 October 2023.
Kind regards, Mirjam =====
[1] Announcing Updated NRO NC Election Process (v2) https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2023-September/002998.html
[2] Updated NRO NC Election Process (v3) https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-documents/other-documents/draft-...
[3] NRO NC Nominations 2023: Call to Fill Two Seats https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2023-September/003001.html
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list
Miriam, Nurani, Thanks to both of you for doing this imporant work. Regarding candidacy ... I think I'm on Nurani's side here. While I can see the logic behind that such candidates wouldn't receive sufficient amounts of votes, that puts a lot of trust in that all involved players play by the – unwritten – rules of democracy. As too many recent examples have showed, a few also among the RIR communities, that is not always the case. An unsuitable, unknowing, or naïve candidate can receive many votes by (intentionally or unintentionally) overflowing the voter consituency with false or misleading information, and also by not being true to promises made as a nominee. To be able to take office without having given the RIPE community a chance to meet and interact with a nominee before they vote for her or him seems like something we don't want to happen. By "forcing" a candidate to interact with the community before standing for election, we give the community a small but important tool that can mitigate this problem. Also, I don't want processes to be too quick. Quick processes give more opportunities for "coups d'etat". I believe in processes that are slow, balanced, and transparent, and I find that transparency increases when processes are slow. I think requiring that a candidate attends a RIPE meeting or two before being nominated to office is good and sound process. Like Nurani, I also see a conflict/asymmetry between requiring it for voters but not for those who later get the power to make decisions on behalf of the voters. Respectfully, /Liman #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc. ! E-mail: liman@netnod.se # Senior Systems Specialist ! Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12 # Netnod AB, Stockholm ! http://www.netnod.se/ #---------------------------------------------------------------------- On 06/10/2023 14:05, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
<SNIP> Also, I think that if we agree that voting eligibility should be having attended at least one RIPE meeting in the past, shouldn’t we add this as a very bare minimum criterion for the candidate eligibility as well? (I would in fact say “having attended at least three previous RIPE meetings, but I don’t have strong opinions on the exact number”.)
mir@zu-hause.nl 2023-10-09 07:57 [+0000]:
<SNIP> So far I believe the community felt that candidates who don't have the necessary skills and background will mostly likely not receive many votes. But let's see what others say.
Hi, I support Nurani's and Liman's suggestion that the qualification for candidacy should be the same as for voting. I also support moving more slowly. There was a time when this community moved fast. But that was when the Internet was transitioning from interesting to infrastructure. That transition has happened. The community of affected people is significantly larger, so optimising processes for transparency, as Liman suggests, is ideal. Thanks, Leo On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 at 05:21, Lars-Johan Liman <liman@netnod.se> wrote:
Miriam, Nurani,
Thanks to both of you for doing this imporant work.
Regarding candidacy ...
I think I'm on Nurani's side here. While I can see the logic behind that such candidates wouldn't receive sufficient amounts of votes, that puts a lot of trust in that all involved players play by the – unwritten – rules of democracy. As too many recent examples have showed, a few also among the RIR communities, that is not always the case.
An unsuitable, unknowing, or naïve candidate can receive many votes by (intentionally or unintentionally) overflowing the voter consituency with false or misleading information, and also by not being true to promises made as a nominee. To be able to take office without having given the RIPE community a chance to meet and interact with a nominee before they vote for her or him seems like something we don't want to happen. By "forcing" a candidate to interact with the community before standing for election, we give the community a small but important tool that can mitigate this problem.
Also, I don't want processes to be too quick. Quick processes give more opportunities for "coups d'etat". I believe in processes that are slow, balanced, and transparent, and I find that transparency increases when processes are slow.
I think requiring that a candidate attends a RIPE meeting or two before being nominated to office is good and sound process.
Like Nurani, I also see a conflict/asymmetry between requiring it for voters but not for those who later get the power to make decisions on behalf of the voters.
Respectfully, /Liman
#---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc. ! E-mail: liman@netnod.se # Senior Systems Specialist ! Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12 # Netnod AB, Stockholm ! http://www.netnod.se/ #----------------------------------------------------------------------
On 06/10/2023 14:05, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
<SNIP> Also, I think that if we agree that voting eligibility should be having attended at least one RIPE meeting in the past, shouldn’t we add this as a very bare minimum criterion for the candidate eligibility as well? (I would in fact say “having attended at least three previous RIPE meetings, but I don’t have strong opinions on the exact number”.)
mir@zu-hause.nl 2023-10-09 07:57 [+0000]:
<SNIP> So far I believe the community felt that candidates who don't have the necessary skills and background will mostly likely not receive many votes. But let's see what others say.
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list
Aligning the criteria for both candidacy and voting seems sensible. I also agree that moving “quickly” isn’t ideal. Better to move slowly and avoid headaches. Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains https://www.blacknight.com/ https://blacknight.blog/ Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Personal blog: https://michele.blog/ Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 I have sent this email at a time that is convenient for me. I do not expect you to respond to it outside of your usual working hours. From: ripe-list <ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> Date: Wednesday, 11 October 2023 at 16:16 To: Lars-Johan Liman <liman@netnod.se> Cc: RIPE List <ripe-list@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [ripe-list] Last Call for Draft: NRO NC Election Process (v3) [EXTERNAL EMAIL] Please use caution when opening attachments from unrecognised sources. Hi, I support Nurani's and Liman's suggestion that the qualification for candidacy should be the same as for voting. I also support moving more slowly. There was a time when this community moved fast. But that was when the Internet was transitioning from interesting to infrastructure. That transition has happened. The community of affected people is significantly larger, so optimising processes for transparency, as Liman suggests, is ideal. Thanks, Leo On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 at 05:21, Lars-Johan Liman <liman@netnod.se> wrote:
Miriam, Nurani,
Thanks to both of you for doing this imporant work.
Regarding candidacy ...
I think I'm on Nurani's side here. While I can see the logic behind that such candidates wouldn't receive sufficient amounts of votes, that puts a lot of trust in that all involved players play by the – unwritten – rules of democracy. As too many recent examples have showed, a few also among the RIR communities, that is not always the case.
An unsuitable, unknowing, or naïve candidate can receive many votes by (intentionally or unintentionally) overflowing the voter consituency with false or misleading information, and also by not being true to promises made as a nominee. To be able to take office without having given the RIPE community a chance to meet and interact with a nominee before they vote for her or him seems like something we don't want to happen. By "forcing" a candidate to interact with the community before standing for election, we give the community a small but important tool that can mitigate this problem.
Also, I don't want processes to be too quick. Quick processes give more opportunities for "coups d'etat". I believe in processes that are slow, balanced, and transparent, and I find that transparency increases when processes are slow.
I think requiring that a candidate attends a RIPE meeting or two before being nominated to office is good and sound process.
Like Nurani, I also see a conflict/asymmetry between requiring it for voters but not for those who later get the power to make decisions on behalf of the voters.
Respectfully, /Liman
#---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc. ! E-mail: liman@netnod.se # Senior Systems Specialist ! Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12 # Netnod AB, Stockholm ! http://www.netnod.se/ #----------------------------------------------------------------------
On 06/10/2023 14:05, Nurani Nimpuno wrote:
<SNIP> Also, I think that if we agree that voting eligibility should be having attended at least one RIPE meeting in the past, shouldn’t we add this as a very bare minimum criterion for the candidate eligibility as well? (I would in fact say “having attended at least three previous RIPE meetings, but I don’t have strong opinions on the exact number”.)
mir@zu-hause.nl 2023-10-09 07:57 [+0000]:
<SNIP> So far I believe the community felt that candidates who don't have the necessary skills and background will mostly likely not receive many votes. But let's see what others say.
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list
-- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list
On 9 Oct 2023, at 09:57, Mirjam Kuehne <mir@zu-hause.nl> wrote:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/internet-governance/internet-technical-comm...
The link to the ASO teleconferences could do with being updated, the 2019 schedule is probably not very useful. https://aso.icann.org/aso-ac/2019-aso-ac-meetings/ There may be other out of date bits but I didn’t check the whole document. Cheers f
Hi Fearghas,
On 9 Oct 2023, at 09:57, Mirjam Kuehne <mir@zu-hause.nl> wrote:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/internet-governance/internet-technical-comm...
The link to the ASO teleconferences could do with being updated, the 2019 schedule is probably not very useful.
I’m surprised that that URL still works :) For those interested, this is the correct link: https://aso.icann.org/aso-ac/meetings/aso-ac-meeting-schedule/ Cheers! Sander
On 11/10/2023 23:35, Sander Steffann wrote:
Hi Fearghas,
On 9 Oct 2023, at 09:57, Mirjam Kuehne <mir@zu-hause.nl> wrote:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/internet-governance/internet-technical-comm... The link to the ASO teleconferences could do with being updated, the 2019 schedule is probably not very useful.
https://aso.icann.org/aso-ac/2019-aso-ac-meetings/ I’m surprised that that URL still works :)
For those interested, this is the correct link: https://aso.icann.org/aso-ac/meetings/aso-ac-meeting-schedule/
Thanks for spotting this. The link has been updated on the RIPE NCC NRO NC web page. Kind regards, Mirjam
participants (7)
-
Fearghas Mckay -
Lars-Johan Liman -
Leo Vegoda -
Michele Neylon - Blacknight -
Mirjam Kuehne -
Nurani Nimpuno -
Sander Steffann