Now that I think we have clearly moved into the discussion stage - it will be interesting to see how that goes - I have looked back at what has been said on criteria and how we get to consensus.
I don’t think the process can or should be micro-managed by the group. I think we can trust Meredith to assume her responsibilities. With that in mind I think the three criteria mentioned by Meredith - candidates should be willing (and not coerced!), able to attend (ideally for the full RIPE meeting), available - are “necessary but not sufficient”. To those of course we should add the generic requirements coming from the “job description" on the RIPE web-site. I hope everybody has read those! I suppose it should almost go without saying that folk should understand what RIPE is and what NCC is and how they each fit into the wider ecosystem. And of course that the co-chairs as a team should also be able to put together a meeting! But all that is probably the same for any WG. So looking through the comprehensive list of criteria from Jim I find myself in agreement with many of them, but not all. I would like to see people from the local community: people who understand how governments work in this region and who understand what the concerns of individuals and organisations in this region are. I would like at least some of the co-chairs to be explicitly sensitive to the tensions between governments and the Internet. Governments and regulators are not always benign! Where I diverge a little from Jim, and the topic has come up recently on this list, is when it comes to outreach and to what extent co-chairs are supposed to represent the WG and indeed RIPE elsewhere. This area is a bit different from others and maybe particularly when it comes to outreach where NCC has been very much involved. NCC, among other things, organises regular roundtables with government folk. I am aware that NCC as such has participated in other meetings such as those of CEPT. I also remember the support NCC gave when it was felt a letter should be written to Brussels. It was not easy. But we were able to do it. Then there was a meeting in the European Parliament on “network neutrality” which proved slightly problematic. Who were the participants representing exactly? To be clear: I am very happy with what NCC has done in this area. I could only wish they mentioned their good work more often on this list! Where I am less comfortable is about outreach being part of the job description of WG Co-chairs. I also wonder to what extent participants in the WG can also take on this kind of task. I think this needs to be discussed further. In Madrid when we have our full complement of co-chairs? As far as consensus is concerned there was a question elsewhere about that. I do not anticipate any problem. If all those who have been following the discussions here on the list just nod at their screens when Meredith announces what she sees as consensus then she will have got it right. Regards, Gordon
