RIPE Accountability Task Force William Sylvester, Chair

Overview Task force established Fall of 2016 at RIPE 73 RIPE community-initiated process Community driven review 12 community members and 4 RIPE NCC staff Scope and more info on task force here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/ripe-accountability-task-force/ Recently published our draft report on RIPE-list: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ripe-list/2018- October/001431.html

Why Review RIPE Accountability? RIPE has grown – has trust and accountability scaled? Helps both the outside world and newcomers to understand RIPE Records intent for historical purposes Greater attention on the accountability of Internet communities after the IANA transition It’s good to take a moment and reflect – community has grown, a lot of newcomers – is our house in order? Recognition of RIPE community’s role in Internet coordination and policy development A big part of our review was about “recording” or describing a lot of this stuff – aiming to capture what “everyone knows” for those who don’t

Our Approach Regular task force discussions Documentation-based review of RIPE structures Sought input from community at different stages Plenary presentation feedback Mailing list discussion BoF at RIPE 76 There were three main parts to our approach The task force held regular calls to discuss aspects of accountability We undertook a review of the documentation – looking at the structures in the RIPE community, whether these roles are documented and whether this meets expectations in terms of accountability We also checked in with the community at a couple of stages to test out some of our ideas – this was valuable – especially a BoF we ran at RIPE 76 where we got a lot of good input

Structure Of Our Report First part describes RIPE, accountability and other elements based on our own discussions and community input (pages 3- 16) Second takes a document-based approach looking at components of RIPE accountability and transparency: Focuses on structures, roles and documentation (pages 17-23) Recommendations (page 24) There are two main parts to our report – The first is a more of a description of RIPE – this was based on discussions among the task force and input we received from the community The second is a matrix that looks at the structures within RIPE, the roles these structures fill – whether they’re adequately documented and whether this meets expectatations This presentation primarily deals with the first part of the report.

How Do We See Accountability In RIPE? Internet relies on coordination – RIPE is a forum for this coordination But it only works if there’s buy-in from the community Participants have to trust that: Contributions will be considered honestly, on their merits Decisions are made on the basis of expert opinion Even if they don’t agree, they can trust that the community’s decisions (policies, etc.) are legitimate Accountability is really about words like “trust” ”legitimacy” and “buy-in” and how these are maintained within the community It’s about making sure that people see participation within RIPE as worthwhile And it’s about making sure they can trust the community’s decisions – even if they don’t always agree with them

Who Is RIPE Accountable To? RIPE is accountable to itself as a community And the individuals that participate within RIPE Making sure their voices are heard Individuals rather than constituencies or stakeholder groups RIPE can’t solve every problem on the Internet – other forums may be more appropriate Participating in RIPE doesn’t mean you’ll get what you want RIPE is accountable to the individuals who participate within it as a community – there are no special constituencies or stakeholder groups It is accountable in terms of making sure their input is dealt with fairly.

Benefits Of Accountability Preserves trust of participants Ensures RIPE remains an effective venue for Internet coordination and policy development Prevents capture Avoids self-serving outcomes at the expense of wider community Even if groups could capture key positions in the community – RIPE would not allow them to make significant unilateral decisions Feedback from community showed that capture wasn’t such a serious concern. Community is confident it can deal with any threats, and this matched our own assessment.

RIPE Community Values RIPE values are “process values” Open, transparent, bottom-up, consensus-based decision making We initially suggested “substantive values” (more higher- level/abstract) – Community stated that there are none that can/should be agreed on Process values are enough – can address any substantive issue There is a small set of values that are baked-in to everything that RIPE does. These values preserve the accountability of the community. They also produce good operational policy. Process values – support higher-level values We originally identified some more abstract, higher-level “substantive values” – but the community feedback caused us to remove this idea from our report. The community’s concern was that it was impossible to get agreement on these sorts of values and even if this could be achieved it might lock the community into certain positions or make other groups or individuals less likely to participate.

A Note On CONSENSUS Consensus plays a central role in RIPE decision-making Therefore felt that we had to describe certain aspects it Report does not give a definition – merely outlines observations In no way do these observations create rules or obligations! Similarly to values – we raised consensus and received pushback from the community – because reaching agreement on something like this could be difficult. But it plays such a massive role within the community that we felt this needed to be described. But we don’t want to create any rules/obligations.

What Consensus Is Not Unanimous agreement Winning a vote Can exist when people have objections… provided they are “invalid” Winning a vote A process rather than a singular event A majority opinion Even if most people agree – unanswered objections can prevent consensus A super-majority Even if almost all people agree – it’s about the nature of objections NOT UNANIMITY Can exist when people have objections… provided they are “invalid objections” NOT A VOTE In terms of it being a “singular event” - it’s a process NOT A MAJORITY OPINION Even if most people agree – if people have valid objections that remain unanswered – consensus has not been reached A SUPER MAJORITY Even if almost all people agree – it’s the nature and substance of objections that are being discussed

The Role Of Chairs Within Consensus Crucial role within almost all community structures Key role in consensus process Sorting input into categories Statements of support Valid/invalid contributions Responsible for declaring consensus WG Chairs have a key role to play within a lot of community processes and structures. Here we’re only talking in the context of consensus. The Chair has two key functions within consensus process: Sorting input Declaring consensus

What Are Invalid Objections Lack of good faith Disruptive, dishonest, or attempting to game process Out of scope Asked and answered Objection has already been addressed (either answered or proposal has already modified to take this into account) Self-serving Focuses too heavily on the interests of individual/group at expense of wider community This list is probably not definitive, but the task force feels that most invalid objections will fall into one of these categories.

Dealing With Low Engagement Wider participation is always valuable and preferred… but not always achievable How do you manage a consensus process when you are not getting enough statements to give you a clear direction? What happens if you get no reply? This is an important part to understand for newcomers and people who are unfamiliar with RIPE. Chairs sometimes find that there’s not a lot of engagement on a proposal – this raises the question of how to determine consensus.

“Silence As Consensus” & “Rational Ignorance” Relatively low participation not necessarily an issue – participants may have rationally concluded that: Based on the expected impact – not worth the effort to learn about the issue and engage with it Happy to defer to others who are more qualified Trust that community members will produce an acceptable outcome They have no strong objections (and therefore remain silent) The chair must judge the situation appropriately SILENCE AS CONSENSUS “No objections on my end” RATIONAL IGNORANCE: “I trust that the people who are more active within RIPE will represent my interests well enough” The key part here is that it’s up to the chair to judge the situation appropriately – according to established community values.

How We See Documentation Documentation supports core RIPE values (open/transparent) Demonstrates accountability to external observers Helps newcomers to engage within RIPE Clarifies intent behind past decisions and ensures alignment

Over-documentation Can Be A Problem Documentation is good, but no need to go crazy Over-documentation creates its own issues Undermines flexibility and trust Empowers people who want to game decision-making RIPE has consciously resisted becoming overly bureaucratic - avoids documentation for its own sake We endorse and respect this tradition

Lack Of Documentation: Not Necessarily A Problem Missing documentation can be a problem if it’s hindering transparency, openness and consistency. But a lack of documentation necessarily a problem – RIPE has norms and values that apply in the absence of any documentation Missing documentation can be a problem if it’s hindering transparency, openness and consistency. – in that case community should take action There are unwritten rules and expectations that can cover any issues – E.g. if a WG Chair failed to meet expectations, documentation wouldn’t necessarily be needed to remove them.

What We Found RIPE is an accountable community Established, robust structures Open, transparent, bottom-up, consensus-based Has documentation of processes No serious or immediate risks to the community Full list of recommendations in our report

Highlights Of Recommendations RIPE Chair selection procedure and role description (in progress) Aligning WG Chair selection procedures Explaining what the WG Chair Collective is responsible for Explaining what the RIPE Plenary does and what its powers are Information for newcomers and newly-selected chairs

Periodic Review The community should consider implementing some kind of periodic review of its accountability First time around was a learning process Expect that any future review could be faster, more lightweight Perhaps with a smaller scope that look into the accountability of specific elements (e.g. a focus just on the RIPE PDP or mailing lists) …but it’s up to you as a community to decide

Next Steps Comment period until 16 November (ripe-list@ripe.net) We’ll then spend one month making any changes Aim to publish final report no later than 14 December Then it’s up to the community to decide what to do with the final report and whether any of the recommendations should be implemented