RIPE Community Plenary.
RIPE 88.
23rd May 2024.
4pm ‑ Main Hall.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Welcome to the community plenary at RIPE 88. Please come in and take a seat. I heard the bell ringing outside, I guess everybody who is interested come in, before we start, I want to make two announcements. There's still time to vote for the Programme Committee elections and to vote for the new Programme Committee candidates until five o'clock, I believe. You still have an hour and ten. If you go to the main website, the RIPE 88 meeting, there's a link to PC elections.

And the second announcement, which actually the Programme Committee made, they made some time for you, they decided to actually start the meeting tomorrow at 9.30 instead of 9 o'clock.


I was going to say I am sure many of you will appreciate that after the dinner tonight, they had some reshuffling to do with the preparations, it worked out that way, they want to start half an hour later. It's also on the website for those of you not in the room right now, I hope everybody is going to see that.

So, that was my introduction, my announcements for that and then let's start with the community plenary. So here's our agenda for today, it's a relatively short agenda but we'll have plenty of time for discussions.

So my name is Mirjam Kuhne, I am the chair of the RIPE community, Niall is sitting there, the Vice Chair, I will probably do most of the talking and then we'll have Remco van Mook giving a sufficient re of the BoF that we had on Tuesday afternoon and some time afterwards to talk about this some more at the community plenary here and then as the third presentation, we have Herve Clement, the chair of the ASO address council give us an update on next times and timeline and at the end he have with a bit of a celebration, 35 years, and some time for open mic hopefully.

So, let's dive into this quick update here.

You might have seen on the RIPE mailing list I have announced ‑‑ or I have sent out a draft document, the Programme Committee has reviewed their chart her, we had two facts one that described the charter and one that described and asked in the work and appointment of the members and so we kind of merged the two documents and added a bit of a scope and intro and cleaned it up a bit more and we published it as a draft. And so there is time until the 10th June to have ‑‑ if you have any questions or comments to send that to the list or to me directly.

I am really pleased that we have done with this, I mentioned this a few times, I think the RIPE NCC did a fantastic job there in producing eight new modules that describe the task of the working group chair and it's not only targeted to existing working group chairs, but also for those of you who are considering maybe taking up such a role or maybe just want to learn how to build consensus or how policy development process works, how to interact with the Code of Conduct team, how to engage a working group and to ‑‑ activities and topics like that.

There are eight separate modules, you can go through them one by one, you don't have to go through it in one go, and you can find information on the RIPE academy website. You need an SSO account to log in like for many other activities on the website and to the elections for instance.

We had a bit of a discussion last time and also in the meetings before about the RIPE meeting planning and we were still kind of catching up from Covid, we kind of like many other events and in our industry, we had a hard time finding venues and planning. And so at the RIPE NCC events team has done a really great job now to plan ahead, further ahead and so I am hoping we get more ahead of the curve and the RIPE NCC, they have done some scouring for meetings coming after 89, 90, 91 and 92, I hope we can announce those locations also to you soon. And we have also changed the process a bit, instead of sending out a call for hosts and then trying to find a host, agreeing with the host and going to the venues and finding a location, kind of flipping the process around, we are going to look at the map, see where have we haven't been in a long time, try to cover our region as good as we can, north, south, east, west, cheap, more expensive, and have a kind of a good spread, then try to find a location when you do ‑‑ do the scouting and once we have a good venue identified, we are going to look for a host.

So once we announce a number of locations, then we'll ‑‑ you see some things coming to your part of the world, please come talk with us if you are interested in hosting a RIPE meeting. In that way we are hoping to have more flexibility and it makes it easier for everyone to come to an agreement and find the best location for our meetings.

And yeah, you might have noticed on the RIPE 88 website, we have added also following up from discussions we had last time for feedback we received last time a lot of information about the venue itself and the city that we are in, related to accessibility, safety, security and we are going forward to do that again and thanks to the RIPE NCC scouting team who paid a lot more attention to this kind of information and has made it accessible and available on the website.

And as usual, if you have any feedback or missing any information, please let us know, if it's helpful for your planning for meeting, we'd appreciate if you let us know.

More community initiatives, the RIPE DNS org resolver best current practices task force has finished their work and published the document as RIPE 823, I would like to give a big thanks and applause maybe to the task force who finished their work, especially Shane Kerr.



I think it was quite a business task, there you are, I was looking for you: And I saw already in the DNS working group there was a good discussion and also operators are starting to talk about how to best implement that, so I think that's a really nice kind of product coming out of the right community.

Other initiatives that are going on unfortunately there are more disasters happening, the differences we had, people from Brazil contacted us about the recent floods that they were having and how they are collecting information and how to keep the networks running and so that will go into the best current practice document, the task force is working on. And so it's an ongoing activity. They didn't meet this time but they are doing work in the background, so I expect there will be more to talk about next time.

In the OpenSource working group, there is an activity going onto the basically published a template how best to give credit to OpenSource project and they have been discussing around turning this possibly in a best current practice document which then points to that template to give some guidance on how to best to do the OpenSource project.

Also the Connect Working Group is has been talking about the best current practice document an the use of the routing registries for IXP route servers, and you will see more on the website, on the mailing list about that.

And last but not least, the RIPE Code of Conduct team has published earlier this week a big document, a long document about work and the engagement and what they do and what they don't do and how you can interact with them and so forth.

So it's another good initiative.

We are always going around promoting RIPE of course, so we had again a good online student session before the RIPE 88 meeting, and it's called the student session, but actually the quality of the talks and the engagement an the presentations we have there is super good and not only talking to students. So I can only recommend you to look at that if you are interested in topics that we represented there, on the picture here is the group of the academic fellows at the meeting, some of them were at the session, I really enjoyed those sessions and thanks to ‑‑ thanks to Eleanor who organised this. In a few weeks I will be talking at the opening plenary of the EuroDIG and mentioning RIPE and technical community.

And regularly we have seen also in the updates, we often attend other industry events and we always reporting back on that in our updates on the website.

And last time we talked about our new logo, in the meantime we have updated ‑‑ or the RIPE NCC is helping with that, you have seen the new flags outside, some of the new material and templates and so we are going to continue to do that but the RIPE NCC is also working on the new RIPE meeting website which is kind of separate from the main, we have RIPE and that's the next step and RIPE NCC is looking for feedback there. They have been going around gathering feedback, I think Philip is still here, if you have any feedback to him about experiences you made going to the website, that specific meeting website and registering and finding information on the website or the search works or anything you feel is missing or could be done better, please talk to him. If you don't catch him here during the rest of the week, there's a QR code and a form, a link, where you can also leave your feedback.

That will help them of course to improve our website.

Again we had this time local hubs, I don't know if they are online, if you get to see them on the screen or some more feedback from them, but we have some pictures: The team in Poland and the other one is the team in Greece. And so we'll gather some more feedback from them after the meetings to see how it went and publish that also on the ‑‑ in our update after the meeting on RIPE Labs.

I am pleased to see this initiative, it's kind of nice, little pockets of our community that come together and attend the RIPE meetings together.

Now this is also coming up, the new Niall and I have been in office now for roughly three and a half years and our term ends in October next year, and so this process kicks off now ‑‑ between now and the next meeting, the new, the next chair of the nominating committee will be appointed and then the person will form the nominating committee, so there will be a call for volunteers for RIPE 89. And then between then and the next meeting there will be a call for candidates for the new RIPE chair team. And at RIPE 91 is what we call the transition meeting where the new RIPE chair team will then be in place and will be selected by the NomCom so it's a long process between now an the next on the but that's how it went last time, you will here more from the NomCom chair this the upcoming few meetings.

And this brings me almost to the end of the presentation. We talked a lot this week about the relationship between the RIPE community and RIPE NCC and RIPE membership, there was a lot of discussions going on in the hallways and we had this BoF on Tuesday, this will definitely be a continuing discussion, and I hope you can focus on a long‑term stability and long‑term relationship with the RIPE NCC, with the community and the RIPE NCC and how we support each other and let's think beyond short‑term pressures that we might feel sometimes but we need a long‑term stable organisation. In the next agenda item, there's a summary of the BoF and see what we can do as next steps.

Now, last but not least, I would like to mention that Paul Wilson is ‑‑ probably the last time at the RIPE meeting as Director General of APNIC and I want to appreciate it, he is here and all the years that he has been involved now, community, not only in the APNIC community and yeah, just wish him well. Wish him well.


Future endeavours. I remember when we met the first time, he came to the a retreat we had organised for various RIR staff and he brought the he is press sew machine and coffee from Australia to make a good impression and that seems to have worked, we have been working together for many years, him and other RIR staff to so thanks Paul and have a great time after your role is at the APNIC. Right and that was that part and are there any questions about anything that I mentioned here apart from the summary that Remco will give about the BoF that will come next?

Any other questions, comments? Much.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Jim Reid speaking for myself. As far as the RIPE chair selection process that's going to be starting fairly soon, I wonder if it would be a good idea to stagger the terms for both the chair and the Vice Chair rather than have them both being replaced potentially at the same time? So even if the selection process is done once, I think that's a good idea to avoid the problem, it may be a good idea to stagger them, let's say the Vice Chair term starts one year after the chosen through‑selection process, I think that would be better to try and get a little bit of continuity, just in case we have a complete break and then a new regime comes in at the same time. Do you want to comment on that?

DANIEL KARRENBERG: I am the author ‑‑ my name is Daniel Karrenberg, the editor of the document that describes the process, we discussed this at the time and I am not saying what's good or bad but it was discussed in depth at the time and the reason these terms are not staggered was that the expectation was that the two people on the team and therefore should be replaced together.

So it's not an oversight, it was very consciously done, whether we want to change it or not. I have no opinion.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: I just want to give you feedback on the decision to announce the meeting... ahead of time, it's very good, it helps with planning a lot.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Thank you, that's good to hear. All right. If there is anything happening on the channels, nothing, I would like to ask Remco to come up for his presentation.

REMCO VAN MOOK: All right. Hello again. I am going to do a quick report on the BoF that happened on Tuesday night. I would actually RIPE NCC to like to spend most of the time in this room to see if we can iron out how we are going to proceed from here.

So this is the report. I did manage to find a new template for the presentations, because if you try to download the one on the website, it's still the old one.

So, the origin, where did this all start. It started with RIPE Labs article that I wrote earlier this year. And I am not going to read this all through, but basically it's we set all of these structures in place 25, 30 years ago.

And given the massive changes in the landscape we are operating in, it's good to revisit those decisions, see if we are still fit for purpose.

So I am just going to go briefly through some of the slides that were presented there. Starting off with this one, which is a little bit of a complicated one, this is terribly not seen and the reason it's not seen is because I had to come up with it.

I tried to find a name for the collaboration between the RIPE community and the RIPE NCC and RIPE NCC membership which may not be aligned at all times as we have seen, the community leadership and RIPE NCC Executive Board and the collaboration, the collaborative compact focuses on four areas of agreement, how you work together, how you think together, how you work with conflict and how you manage your own behaviour.

Now, for that compact, we have or hopefully we have an objective. So not just for the RIPE NCC, not just for the RIPE community, it's for the whole thing.

And this was the slide I presented which got, which got a good 15, 20 minutes of discussion on how we wanted to, what was missing, what was superfluous and no longer necessary, so in ‑‑ really why are we here in this room, in in case, on mailing lists, etc.

It's so enable our community to operate one secure stable resilient global internet and there's a lot of meaning behind all of those words but in order to do all of this, we need a trusted efficient accurate resilient registry and open and inclusive and engaged RIPE community which of course you all are, insightful reliable and timely data about the internet and its operations, and for that we need a stable organisation, with robust governance and diverse and competent staff. We had a bunch of discussions about these words, stuff that was missing, the words that were missing, as Paul Wilson rightly point out, which is good, impartial was not in here, because it was on another slide.

What I will try to do, because ‑‑ so after this we went through the current structure which is based on a document RIPE 161, which gives a set of criteria for the structure of RIPE NCC, which is good service, neutral, impartial, you can read the slide yourself.

And then the issues and caveats I have identified so far, which is by no means complete or correct, is that we have a current legal structure that is based on criteria that were relevant in 1997, the community policy enforces a certain engagement structure for the RIPE NCC, that might be outdated.

At the same time we have some external constraints on what that can look like because we have RFC 7020, or for the people who have been here, this is a replacement to RFC 2050 and the ICP2 document. You are welcome. The focus for RIPE NCC as a registry, isolating on that function, is going from resource distribution to registry accuracy and compliance, there's a lot of work going around that. And the current membership structure actually no longer allows for growth. We are seeing dropping numbers of LIR accounts.

So then for the second question was asked what criteria should a researcher at RIPE NCC meet which led to a whole bunch of good feedback.

And we stopped it there.

There was another part of the slide deck which is talking about funding, but we ran out of the hour and trying to have a discussion on next steps was relevant because we wanted to make sure that in order to get to funding, you need to have the structure that you need to fund in order to have the structure you need to fund, you need to know what it's supposed to be doing anyway.

So, next steps. What's going to happen now. I am going to help write ‑‑ we are going to write a RIPE Labs article that summarises the outcomes of the BoF. I will also endeavour to come up with an updated proposed objective for the RIPE Compact in another RIPE Labs article. And where we take the discussion from there is, I just briefly discussed it with Mirjam before this session, there was some talk at the BoF about potentially setting up a task force to do some of the work which had some voices and some strong opinions against not, against doing a task force.

There was some comments about basically designating a single person to come up with a document which actually is sort of the worst version of a task force because it's a task force of one person. And then looking at sort of the tool set that RIPE NCC has, we don't have a lot of different structures to play with and so we might want to end up because one of the concerns about a task force would be that they would be a limited set of people in a closed room coming up with solutions is actually going the royal path in RIPE community, which is do a working group and that sound silly because it is very clearly time constrained but if the only tool you have is a hammer... everything... you know.

So, and this is where I am looking at you. What do you think? What should we do from this? So clearly we want to ‑‑ the outline of the process is we want to set objectives, after we set objectives, we want to figure out OK, so what bits and pieces are missing or superfluous in our current structure and after that we are going to talk about funding which will probably be a discussion that's closer related to RIPE NCC membership, so Mirjam, I will leave this to you to point out to please.

BRIAN NISBET: I think we have more than a hammer, we have examples of task forces which have been open PCAP, diversity, you can set objectives and you can have a more open task force and also just do other things, I mean we are talking about restructuring the NCC, we can be mall I can't believe in what the community can do as well. So I think ‑‑ and the reason a working group just, there's so much more and heavy around that, it just seems like the wrong vehicle, I would say imitate what was done with what we did with diversity, just better with the clear objectives and things and have something open and just do it that way, build a mailing list, do a thing, don't constrain yourselves, don't constrain ourselves in the forms that we have.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Speaking for myself. Sort of echoing what Brian said, except for the last part, I would very much like having a form of structure because my experience working on community bodies in this community is unless you have a structure that helps you sorting out ideas, setting trajectories and ideally having items next to names, we have a tendency of not getting much done sometimes. So whether we go working group initially thought was a good idea, but if an actually open task force is an option, because we got feedback that task forces are too close.

And the other big feedback that we need external input so we need other people to be able to join some maybe open task force is a good idea, but I would highly argue for some sort of structure because we can keep open minded, that's on us even though we have structure to actually getting things done.
AUDIENCE SPEAKER: With hat of B cop task force, co‑chair. What Brian said, task forces can be as closed as possible or as open as possible. So if we do a very, very open task force like Bcop, I think we can avoid using the big hammer and going the royal path.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Netnod. I want to caution a little here. To me we are not in a hurry. If we are making ‑‑ if we are going to make changes, they have to be right and that means that we have to step carefully, move slowly and be very transparent with the process that leads up to this. And we need to open, work in a very open fashion and as they say, we have to learn from other places what works and what doesn't work and compared to what we have to see where we don't work and to me a working group sounds more like the right way forward. Because then we can do what Francesca said, we can put names to things, we can put a structure in place that drives this forward and we can do it in the most open way we have. And transparency is very important because if people outside the group can see what happens and follow that, they will not be nervous and they will also feel that they have time to intervene when they see things that they don't like. And if you close things up too much, you are not talking about that, but it's always a risk, and/or you move too quickly, people will feel left out and behind and it's very important that the result of this is well‑anchored in as wide a community as possible.

REMCO VAN MOOK: It is the key objective here, yes. Thanks. So out of curiosity, doing, taking a deliberate approach ‑‑ what kind of timeline do you have in mind for this?

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Four years. Ìsh.

REMCO VAN MOOK: The timeline I have in my head with, partly with my other hat on, is 18 to 36 months? I do think we need to ‑‑ like you said, we are not in in a hurry, but dinner is not getting any warmer.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: We sound like we are on the same page. Thanks.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Thank you. If we are going to make a fundamental structural change to this community and the way that it all works together, that's going to need a very high level of community engagement, community support for it.
If we do this in a completely open fashion where everybody can throw everything in without any structure or reaching any kind of consensus on what it is we are trying to fix here and what the problems are and what we want to keep, I can see a great potential for a very unstructured conversation where people pulling in different directions because they haven't actually agreed on which direction they want to move in and saying we want this kind of change when actually somebody else is saying no, we want this other kind of change because they are trying to get somewhere different. So I think that I'd like to suggest that this needs to be phased.


AUDIENCE SPEAKER: And I would like to suggest that the first phase should be about understanding and documenting better where we are and what are the key features of where we are but good oil, and then identifying what the challenges, not necessarily what's wrong but said or perceived to be problematic to various aspects so that we understand that the issues better and that is something that can be a deep dive thing that can be done in a more objective fashion and it's not very much not a decision‑making or pre‑empting phase, that sound like the sort of thing that a task force could do, on the understanding that was only to produce a report to get the community better sort of common vocabulary and language about what it is that we are discussing. And then we can review then what is the next step and what is the appropriate structure to discuss OK, if these are the things that are being said as being the problem, what would we want to do about that and do we agree, is there consensus within the community about these problems or is there disagreement? People might not think it's a problem, might think it's a price worth paying, you get into a consensus building thing about the direction you want to move in and there will be a third and fourth phase where you start looking for solutions. You can only really start looking for solutions when you have got really an idea of what the problem is and you have got some idea that you are pulling in the same direction.

REMCO VAN MOOK: Absolutely.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: That would be my suggestion. Start and ‑‑ therefore, and I think this, I agree with the previous speaker this is not something you want to do in a great rush. If you ‑‑ I think, actually, if you try to move too soon to a solution, you end up quite a lot of time being wasted in other unproductive discussion and then you get frustration and a sense we are not moving forward and money is running out an the things aren't getting fixed and so forth and then the sense of pressure to ‑‑ we must move to this because I have got to a clear idea of what to do and the discussion hasn't been going anywhere an that creates great opportunity for error.

So there's a bit of a hare and tortoise about this, a methodical approach will get there sooner and faster.

REMCO VAN MOOK: Thank you, that was very insightful.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Daniel Karrenberg, I have been involved in the previous and the one before iteration of this process. What Malcolm said, I was going to say is the previous iteration of the process had two stages, the first stage was finding out what the requirements were and you had them on a slide and the second stage was to evaluate possible solutions and decide on one.

And I think those are fundamentally different things. I think we have very, very bad experience with design by committee so I would very strongly suggest that we do the first phase and get the requirements and Malcolm has already said much more and I agree with what he said. So we should do this first and not get into solutioneering and the form this takes is not so relevant as long as it's open and transparent and solicits input from the whole community and beyond. Thank you.

REMCO VAN MOOK: Just to make sure that we are on the same page, I wasn't suggesting anything different. So we are in agreement, I appreciate that Daniel, thank you. Out of curiosity, Daniel, can you remind me seeing as you have done two of these, how long did those take?

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Those were different times! The first one was make a set of criteria at one RIPE meeting, agree on a set of criteria in the next RIPE meetings and there was three RIPE meetings a year and it was much faster and then send ‑‑ get two stockies to actually write the solution thing with advice from, I think it was at least one accountant.


AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Yes, it was KPMG. So basically they got instructed, you go, you evaluate different things and you get an expert opinion on both sort of the text and mostly the legal structure and that's how we ended up as an association. Does it answer the question.

REMCO VAN MOOK: It very much answers the question. Thank you.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Tina Morris, AWS, very much like others have said, I'd like to see this well‑planned out organised. But I do want to see strong leadership either through a working group or task force, I have no preference for that.

I tend to not want to see it developed just loosely across the mailing list over months, the mailing list is quite challenging for myself to follow, to be honest. Often times I am time‑zone handicapped and we have very loud voices that repeat themselves over and over and it's not the most constructive. I would love to see something where a group of individuals from the community come together, organise this into bites, sections and a purpose and brings it back to the community and very openly shares where they are going, checks in, makes sure we are all going in the right direction, consensus is achieved, and then move on to kind of the next step. But break it up in pieces, phases, and be very transparent. But I want to see a core group really own it and drive it, otherwise we are not getting anywhere in a timely manner.

REMCO VAN MOOK: Absolutely, the one thing I will say ‑‑ I am not going to be the core group on my own.

TINA MORRIS: I will volunteer to help as long as you will promise to make phone calls at a semi‑reasonable hour.

REMCO VAN MOOK: I think we can work it out, thanks, Tina, that's much appreciated.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: What I'm thinking of, I am thinking actually about IANA transition and we did this project quite well, it required structured team with accountable team as well to develop the final proposal but I think it also requires some talking through and my feeling is that we haven't done the talking through yet.

I think the BoF is a good start but people need to talk and I think the more open it is, the better, so my suggestion would be just a simple mailing list, even if has some drawbacks. And then ‑‑ and I agree with Malcolm, once we agree on the problem statement and get community consensus on that, then we can sort of go with a more structured approach, maybe inviting consultants and develop the actual proposal for change.

REMCO VAN MOOK: OK, much appreciated.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: I will stay out of the heavy stuff of content of the work. Start with, from my contribution right now just with simple thing of naming stuff. To me it seems that, well, the run‑of‑the‑mill task force would not do kind of requirements for this process are more openness and more structure and quite clearly, quite clearly run of the mill or working group certainly does not work and just looking at the names, the task force is there for address task and I think that's at hand here.

So I would suggest drop the working group denomination and essentially just be open working group. Anyway, our working groups usually are not really that productive between the two in‑person meetings and that obviously would not provide enough output for what we need. Thank you.

REMCO VAN MOOK: Absolutely. I mean what I do take from your comment, we actually, we need a lot more iterations than just every six months when there's a RIPE meeting on and I get to climb on stage again.

I'd rather not. So yes, this will be a typical, in the sense that, yes, there will be a lot of work that has to be done in between meetings. And we'll have to find a structure around that, whether that's a task force structure, there's a working group, I don't care about the name and title, I am indifferent, it's just that we have a number of pre‑defined settings, see if any of those fit, if none of them fit, we'll do something else but I also don't want to rat‑hole ourselves into defining a structure to set up a committee to set up a subprocess, you know, so in that sense, taking a practical approach saying OK, these are the structures we have, without having to invent something new, right, to get going on this.

Because I mean, yes, we should do this very deliberately and very ‑‑ with very well measured steps and don't rush this and don't go into solutioneering or whatever, but we don't ‑‑ like we don't have time to set up a subcommittee to set the task force for the process for the ‑‑ I want to sort of avoid that step.

MIRJAM KUHNE: I just want to, I will close the mic after the four of you have spoken.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Leo Vegoda I want to offer slightly contrary viewpoint from what Andre said, he said that the IANA transition was successful and I would argue that the IANA transition hasn't been tested yet. The IANA team does a cracking job. They are operationally great, the governance is very boring, I looked at the budget for this year that was just published last week, it's like just inflation different from last year. It's only when something horrible happens that we will know whether the IANA transition has been successful. From that perspective, I would like to support what Tina was arguing for, which is some very engaged people with strong leadership. I think it needs to be really well thought through, I think a mailing list is the most inappropriate way to achieve that. And it needs people who are strongly engaged and have all of the skills that Tina talked about when she was at the microphone during the BoF.

REMCO VAN MOOK: Thanks Leo. In my typical day job setting, I would heavily use like something like multi‑player note pad for this, but I don't think we have that tool for the community at this point. But yeah, absolutely.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Shane Kerr, IBM. So I have never been to a general meeting. I don't work for an LIR so in some sense I have tried to distance myself from the discussion here a little bit because in a way I don't feel like it's my place to tell an organisation how to run their business and work with their members. So my question is: What is the expectation of this process? I know we have talked about open engagement and wanting to get lots of voices, but in my mind, you know, some animals are more equal than others, right?

REMCO VAN MOOK: That was the t‑shirt I was wearing the other day but... so the reason, I mean one of the main reasons why I wanted to take this back to the community rather than do this inside of the NCC is because I think that this is bigger than something that just relates to the membership.

It is about the wider structure in which this was set up and which we operate and if you then reflect on the landscape that we are operating in, we have all of the governmental mess and everything else that we are dealing with these days, which are absolute non‑entities back in 1997. There's a substantial think required and I don't mean there's going to be drastically different outcomes but I want just to reaffirm that we are on the right track.


AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Benedict Stockebrand, speaking for myself. Maybe consider something like monthly video meetings or something like that rather than the mailing list. Just as another option to think about.

REMCO VAN MOOK: I appreciate that. At the same time I have been subjected to many 40‑person zoom calls and if there was anything not productive I have ever been engaged in, it's been that. But I do appreciate your comment.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Tom Hill, BT. There's been a lot of talk about the structuring process of how we operate a task force. I don't think anyone has actually said it yet but it perhaps is incumbent upon us to start thinking about looking at external help to run something of that sort, someone who has methodical approach and experience in this from an impartial space outside of this community. Such that we don't fall to potential al infighting or circular hell of process and structure discussions, somebody who can I guess almost act between a chair and a programme manager. There was I think Daniel mentioned something about external review by KPMG I think it was in the past and I also wanted to know is there space for this once we have a set of proposals.

REMCO VAN MOOK: I think, I mean my personal opinion, that's absolutely crucial. I mean, if we are going to jump into a new legal structure without legal counselling, then I think Athena is going to murder me, so absolutely.

MIRJAM KUHNE: We have closed the mic, sorry, I just wanted to give Remco a couple of minutes if you want to summarise. What you plan to do next. What we should be doing next.
REMCO VAN MOOK: Let's ‑‑ I am going to think about this, probably talk in the hallways with some of you a little bit more. We have the closing plenary tomorrow. See if there's anything of more substance than basically the first two bullet points, which I will commit to do anyway.

And there's definitely a structure required. I think Tom did made an excellent suggestion about potentially getting someone externally to sort of enforce an agenda and a timeline and keep the trains running, I think that's, that might be an excellent idea so I don't have a lot else to add here so other than I appreciate all of your carefully thought contributions so for. So thank you.


MIRJAM KUHNE: Thanks Remco, thanks everyone. Next on the agenda we have Herve with an update of the address supporting organisations advisory council.

HERVE: Good afternoon everyone, first sorry for the number of the community who were attending yesterday's policy working group, it's the same slides, I have nothing particular new compared than yesterday, compared to yesterday. But I think that the new people will be very interested about what is happening, about the source of discussions so within the ICANN about, the internet governance, so I would say that I was pronouncing to many sos in my presentations. The ASO, it's a so, it's the addressing supporting organisation, it's one of the supporting organisations of the ICANN comprised of two bodies, the first one I am not part of, it's composed of four quorum councils of the regions, so Hans Petter is one. And the other part of the ASO is not so is a counsil with three people from the different regions, two appointed or as a community on one by the Executive Board.

OK. The ASO AC Address Council is comprised of 15 members, so the time of office is different from everywhere and the objective of this council is to advise the ICANN board if any question about policy, policy discussions for instance, global policy developing process, global policy is a policy which is come into every regions and dealing with iteration of I NR and the regions. We have the responsibility to appoint two directors of the ICANN board, there is 21 board of directors, the ISO is responsible for two, seat nine and seat ten and one number to the ICANN nomination committee is responsible then to appoint other responsibilities within the ICANN. We have monthly meeting on remote and normally one face to face meeting and I will say one more time normally during the first ICANN meeting of the year.

Normally 15. Currently 11. Because principally within the AfriNIC an because of the current situation, there's no election possible there. The last number we had was Sol from South Africa and there is nobody currently and Sander you added to because of the process so we are two. I am this year the chair, Nicole from the APNIC region is one of the Vice Chair and Erica from Brazil, from the LACNIC is the other one. So there is a committee, specifically dedicated to global policy development and so they are looking what happened in the ‑different regions and see if there's a policy potentially that can go to the global policy process, we have Dima and George ville /HRA and we have to appoint somebody from the RIPE region.

Transparency, because it's a very important objective we have is to have our meeting very open, everybody can attend even if it's not possible to participate except you are asked to. The link, there is ASO website and so the list of the different meeting is written and displayed there.

There is a mailing list as well open, you can read the different description in them. Normally the tele‑conference takes place the first Wednesday of every month. If there is a special meeting or regional one, it's a week after and you have the calendar. I say that one of the responsibilities of the ASO is to appoint directors, for seat 10 first under the line is so 2025, it was appointed last year, everybody knows is Christian Kaufman from our region and for the seat 9 is Alan Barrett and so there was a process, I will talk about that just after, he was appointing and his term ends 2024 so during the last ICANN meeting of the year which is a general meeting.

From the nomination committee is Ron da Silva for 2024.

Recent activities, as you saw, we are only 11 and one important issue we have and is to be sure that we can continue with this number to fulfil our responsibilities for election, etc.

And there was the programme of the definition of the quorum and other things particularly in the last operational procedure, there were different parts regarding voting and voting definition and we have decided to make them very consistent and harmonised. And no, there was a lot of meeting and work regarding the update of the operational procedures, it was voted within the council, then presented to the NROEC who then approved, it was last October we have new personal consistent with ‑‑ procedures so that we can continue our job.

There was so selection for seat 9. Normally we could be able to announce the new director around middle of May, but there are a process within the ICANN, something to check, so I have no possibility to announce the new director. But I am pretty confident we can do that in the next day.

And there is some things you probably heard about, ICP‑2, it's an internet co‑ordination policy. Just a few words about policy, 1998, ICANN was founded, there was at that time three supporting organisations, there was the ASO, the addressing supporting organisation, the DNSO, and the PSO, the protocol supporting organisation. There have been after, MOU, there were the question to create additional regional internet reg trees, because at that time there were only three, there were the RIPE NCC, the ARIN and the AfriNIC so there were a lot of discussions about the creation of these documents, which is called ICP‑2, what is this document, so it elaborates on list the different criteria, the new regional internet registries have to follow to be created.

So it was discussed within the ASO AC at that time, it was Hans Petter who was the chair of the ASO AC, it was then accepted via a specific process and from 2001, it was possible to create an additional internet registries, the LACNIC was created in 2003 an the AfriNIC in 2005.

And for different reason, it was last year we were asked by the NRO EC to re‑work and to update these document because first it was created in 2000. So the ecosystem has seen them and it was a question of implements the procedure and how to use the criteria because up to now, this criteria were only used to create a new internet registry, but it was not possible to use them to check if a regional registry is in good ongoing, our side, and that's a reason why, it was necessary to update it finally to strengthen the internet ground system on the system by all. This request from the NRO EC was sent in October last year and we met in Montevideo in January to work on the first question, is about the implementation and the use of these different criteria with the help of the legals of the regions as well an the I can, we try to be in... with the different committees so that was the first task and then we met again, it was during the first ICANN meeting in Puerto Rico in March to update the criteria. I talk about work within the NRO EC with thelegal, with the ICANN. But of course you are the community and the community will be consulted. It's something we will see probably our survey, etc, to have your input about that because to have a consistent document, we have to be sure to have all the advices of the different communities so we can the community from the ICANN and different regions, etc, it's part of the process and the process is not a completely new one, there are specificities, but we don't reinvent the wheel and so we have talk with the ICANN, with regional registries, etc, to be sure to have something with consistence to reach an adoption. But not this year because we will need time to process that and that's the reason why we have established an agenda and timeline for 2024 and 2025.

There is, so I want comments, a timeline, very specifically line by line etc, because it's new; just to say that there is a link within the ASO website with a description of the work we have done till now.

There was a question yesterday about specific document we are updating. We have the project very soon to share something, know there is some drafts, it's difficult to share draft to avoid to have so many comments, but it's pretty plan of course one more time for transparency to share this sort of the command we are working on.

That's the ‑‑ so the following of the timeline. And I think I am at the end of my presentation.


Thank you, Herve. Are there any questions?

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Hello. Sander Stefan. ExASO AC member. Since it was this community that appointed me, I wanted to explain why I had to step down. Unfortunately, it was one of the requirements to be a candidate for the board elections at this meeting, and one of those requirements was that I would step down from the ASO AC before the election started. Unfortunately, I have not been able to complete my term but I still volunteered to help out my former colleagues whenever they would like me to help. So but that's the reason I stepped down. Thank you.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Daniel Karrenberg, speaking for myself. Thank you for this presentation, it was obviously an ICANN style presentation that was totally full of processes but didn't have any content.

HERVE CLEMENT: Sorry about that.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: No, you are not! But since this is a RIPE meeting, can you give us at least a personal impression of about one minute of where this is going, what is the thing that is required for strengthening ICP‑2? And I don't want you to reveal the draft, but give us a little bit about what this is about and not only process please.

HERVE CLEMENT: Okay, Okay. Completely understand your question. For instance, I can give example because finally the first ICP‑2 is public so you can find it in the ICANN. The criteria is, for instance, to be a not‑for‑profit, it is, for instance, for interregistry to have primary functions as to delegate resources and to take care of both of the resources, for instance to have a size, there is a lot of discussion about the so the size ‑‑ as a regional registry to for an example, that's the list of criteria we have in in document but one more time as varies in this document is public and you can read it and see the example an the core example of what it is.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Rudiger Volk. Herve, I am also going on to the ICP‑2 and kind of the big plenary presentation that Randy Bush gave at the previous meeting was pointing to ICP‑2 and my understanding, I may be completely wrong, was that he was asked, well, okay, calling for taking care in ICP‑2 about sustainability, stability of the overall system under say bad weather kind of is that already taken up in your discussions in some ways and kind of the other question that follows for me is well okay preparing for bad weather seems to remind me of discussions when Remco was on the stage and I wonder what potentially relations at the global and at the European level would be.

HERVE CLEMENT: Okay. European level, I don't know if I could say very specifically about that but it's legitimate questions, there are two parts in the question which were requested by the NROE/KREFPLT the update of the criteria first, it's non‑sort of consolidate when you have updated things and correspondence on time, so it's one step to go red, on the other one to be able to use this criteria not only for the creation but for the complex cycle of the life of internet registry so I think it would be part of the question you would have about that. (Inaudible)

NIALL O'REILLY: RIPE Vice Chair, to some extent Rudiger Volk has already alerted people to this but I think it's no harm to emphasize it, ICP‑2 as it stands and as it's revised has requirements we need to take into account in addressing what will be the new RIPE Compact. Thank you for making this clear.


MIRJAM KUHNE: Any other comments, questions for Herve, anything online? No. Thank you. I would like to thank you Herve for your update.


And last but not least for today, a bit of celebration, yeah!

Yes, I mean was it yesterday I think 35 years ago that RIPE 1 took place in Amsterdam. So yeah, I just thought we'll end with a bit of fun here. Clicker doesn't do what I want, no, doesn't work. Next slide please!

Well, I have them here in front of me, they are already online, when they show up. Actually, I have the minutes of the first RIPE meeting on here in front of me, they should be coming up, I don't think I am doing anything wrong but I wanted to as a first point I want toed to tell you about a meeting we had a few weeks ago in Athens, the southeast European meeting, it was kind of a mini RIPE meeting in that region and in front of that, yes, thank you, we had the 40th anniversary of the EARN community, the European Academic Research Network community that was created in long before RIPE started and it was the 40th anniversary and there was some really fascinating talks and presentations and there was also a panel discussion at the SE meeting itself and I was fascinated to meet these pioneers and it's not only hear about the good old times but also there were very inspiring and very much sort of okay, where are we today, what have we done in the last 40 years, what has changed, where do we go from here and it was very encouraging and inspiring and a little bit threatening too.

But there was a podcast at the RIPE NCC did with some of the speakers there, the pioneers and that came out on RIPE Labs and I want to to, I haven't had a chance to listen to it but I am sure it's fascinating so I'd like to point you to that.

That was just even prior to RIPE 35 years, but then there was RIPE, RIPE 1, on the 22nd May 1989.

And that's from the minutes of the first RIPE meetings and it says in there as an activities: The meeting adopted the name Reseaux IP Europeens. So it was still a working title, so I guess it still works, we are still using that title and yeah, some interesting maybe to read the minutes of the first meeting, that was even before RIPE NCC was in the picture and the RIPE community did a lot of the secretariat work on a volunteer basis within without the RIPE community itself.

So yeah, RIPE 1 took place in Amsterdam 35 years ago, thanks to everyone involved at the time and still involved now, I think we have a few people here at the meeting, you were here Rudiger and so Arnold, he was involved at the first RIPE meeting in Amsterdam. So yeah, 35 years later, a lot of things have changed, obviously, but we are still here, we still a good community, and still strong and vibrant and doing a lot of good work and we are still having hopefully also some fun while doing it.

And there are actually some, should be some cupcakes out to celebrate this, there was already some out earlier on, a bit of a spoiler, but they should be out there now too, so please help yourself to some cakes.

Don't run away quite yet. I wanted to remind you there's also the diversity inclusion session after the coffee break here in this room, some fascinating talks also scheduled for that and some open mic sessions and then after that there's the big dinner tonight, the RIPE dinner.

And as a reminder for those of you who are not in the room anxious about dinner and starting tomorrow at 9, we start at 9.30 thanks to the Programme Committee who decided that.

That kind of ends my presentation. We have some time, is there any AOB? Anything you would like to bring up in the community plenary, that you would like to discuss? I tried to leave some time at the end. There is a speaker.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Just a quick one. Will there be stickers of this lovely little logo?

MIRJAM KUHNE: I thought when I saw it we should have stickers, we could still do stickers. Thank you.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Hi, yeah. I wonder are there any original RIPE 1 meetings attendees in the room, maybe they can ‑‑

MIRJAM KUHNE: I just pointed them out out to you. Yeah, there were.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Maybe I can shake their hands. Thank you.


AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Just speaking for myself, quick question you mentioned a couple of times we are starting tomorrow at 9.30, is it in any way impacting the results? No? Just that wasn't mentioned at all. So the results will be will be 10.30.

MIRJAM KUHNE: You are talking about the general meeting, I am not interfering with that at all, that's RIPE NCC Executive Board responsibility and we are not making any changes to early announce ments that were made.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Just to confirm there were no changes to the timing of the general meeting, that would not be done without due announcement.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: I tried to avoid a clash with the room.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Everything else stays the same, just skipping one slot in the morning. Anything else? I guess then we can leave a little earlier and have some cake and then come back here for the diversity session. Thank you all.