RIPE Community Plenary session
27th October 2022
4 p.m.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Welcome everybody to the RIPE 85 Community Plenary. My name is Mirjam Kuhne, I am the RIPE Chair and there is Niall O'Reilly over here who is the RIPE Vice‑Chair, your RIPE Chair team at your service.

And we have Gergana here helping us with the chat monitoring and Q&A also on Meetecho for those of you who are online and we have Suzanne helping with the scribing.

Right. Let's go!
It's going fob a bit of a Mirjam show to start with but I hope there will also be questions and comments in between, so that you don't get too listen to me only.

This is the agenda. So, we'll give you our regular update what we have been busy with over the last few months. Then I want to give you a quick update ‑‑ I promised it on the mailing list some months ago about the situation of the moderation of the RIPE mailing list, and I need your feedback on that.

And then I have a Secret Working Group, a secret presentation about the Secret Working Group, going to unveil the secret a little bit. And then we have some time for open mic session I think.

So, what have we been up to, and not only we, but ‑‑ Niall and I have been been busy, but the community, we have achieved quite a lot. I have been looking at what we have done over the last two years, if you will, since we started, and I think we made good use of the pandemic by doing a lot of house cleaning and updating our processes, and I know some of you have said God we have done so much and so many processes, but I think we had some successes there and I also heard a lot during this week again, and it's really good to hear you actually start working on more technical and content discussion.

But I think it was important to do some of that, you know, cleaning up our governance. For instance we have a new PDP, we have an updated Code of Conduct, we have had the RIPE Database task force, the Database Requirements Task Force, they finalised their report and published some recommendations and that will be an ongoing activity to address those recommendations.
There is a new document that defines about the RIPE task force is and actually gives some guidelines to that, because that was lacking.
We had some online meetings during the pandemic and of course we had the last one, and also and that helped us really to improve our hybrid meeting facilities, and we are now continue to use those.
We are of course also continuing to promote RIPE in various forms and increased our outreach to new participants, I'll get back to some.those issues in more detail.

One thing that we have been working on, or rather the RIPE Code of Conduct Task Force has been working on, is the Code of Conduct process and procedures. So, I just want to give you a bit of run down there, we have a new updated Code of Conduct already for a year, and the task force has published two new documents before the RIPE meeting. There is an updated document of the process document, and there is also document that describes a bit what this Code of Conduct team's responsibilities are and how we are planning to form that team.

There was a lot of feedback on the list, and I think also a lot of misunderstandings about the document and the process, and so the task force actually got together and wrote an article and published that on RIPE database labs to summarise some of the feedback and address some of the concerns that are in there and I'll go into that in a bit more detail later.

We had some drop‑in sessions during the meeting where people could come and ask some questions and also find out more information about what it means to be on this team, and so in summary there will an updated set of documents after the RIPE meeting, and we gathered some for feedback during the week. And of course, we also had this fantastic presentation by Valerie on Tuesday I think it was to talk about her experience from other communities and other Code of Conducts, I think that was really helpful.

Just to address some of the feedback, or to summarise some of the feedback that we have received so far.

The ‑‑ one concern was the right to defend. So if somebody is accused of some Code of Conduct violation, people were under the impression that they don't have an opportunity to tell their side of the story, but if you look at the document, that's actually part of the process. So the really first step in the process is for the Code of Conduct team to reach out to the person that's been reported, if you will, to hear their side of the story, so that's definitely part of the process.

And also, it's the ‑‑ we have the discretion of the team to then decide if it's worth further investigating report.

But since there was so much confusion or misunderstanding about this, we are definitely going to go into the document and clarify the language about that.

Another thing that was, there was a misunderstanding about was the point about anonymity. And there were some concerns what does that mean and that the reporter can remain anonymous, it's optional, and I understand also from experiences from other communities, that this allows ‑‑ it's important to provide that option at least, to allow people to report also any Code of Conduct violations about people that are in power because often people are hesitant to do that. And the other ‑‑ that will probably be the exceptions, you know, anonymous reports.

And also, the anonymity of the person that is been reported, or any breach of Code of Conduct, supposedly. The team will also ‑‑ will not make that name publicly, disclose the name of that person. I mean it's not like a public shaming exercise. It's really trying to protect the person that has been harmed and to find the best solution for all parties involved.

And then I was also questioned about actually anonymous reports, and while that is also an option in there and that's apparently also common practice in other communities, it's also expected to have, to, you know, don't have this happen very often, plus you should also be aware that this will have a different weight. The team will have to take that into account, you know, that they don't have the full information and anonymous report will probably carry different weight, lower weight than, you know, a personal report.

And then last, there was also some discussion about the impartiality of the Code of Conduct team, in the whole process. And what I really want to stress here is that we, as a community, I think what's really essential that we have trust in that team, and like, we have trust in, you know, Working Group Chairs or the RIPE Chair team ‑‑ I hope ‑‑ and that we put trust, however we build that team or we select that team we need to be able to trust that team and trust that they have the right intentions, and there will also be training and have a diverse set of skills and expertise.

Integrity is important. It currently says that the Chair teams will select the members for the Code of Conduct team. There was some questions about it. It the community should be selecting the team members. Others have selected that it's important ‑‑ it's sufficient, if you will, that the RIPE Chair teams selected the members because you have selected the RIPE Chair team and it's kind of our responsibility to make sure the RIPE community functions well and so that could be part of our responsibility.

I want to stress to you also that whenever it says the RIPE Chair decides, or appoints or selects, we usually don't do this in isolation. I am not going to sit at home on my own going like I feel like doing this. I usually get a lot of feedback and gather a lot of feedback and input from community members or from the community at large before we move ahead and make any decisions or before we declare consensus. So, that is really important I think to understand.

But we will clarify this also in the domain and there will be details added on how these team members will also be indemnified in the document, that was another question on that.

So as the next steps, you can read all this in the Labs article, this is basically just what I, in a summary of what has been published by the task force.
So, we will clarify the duties of the task force team, of the Code of Conduct team rather, and make sure there is no misunderstanding what their duties are. And then we clarify how serious reports will be handled because there was also a question, you know, that any kind of serious reports should be reviewed by the RIPE Chair before any actions are taken so we clarify the language there. We will also adjust the section on personal data. That was important that people felt very clear what we do with the data, and for any report, and we'll add some text on the indemnification of the team members.

Then we'll publish the new documents after the RIPE document, with this clarification and hopefully we can gather more feedback and input and I would also like to encourage you to tell us if you think this is good, good enough, let's move ahead, try it out. You know, see if it works. We can always make changes later. And then, I hopefully I can call ‑‑ issue a call for consensus soon.

And last but not least, I would also like to encourage you to think about if you have the expertise and skills and interest to volunteer for such a team. We are thinking of relatively short terms because it can be possibly potentially a difficult task, also because it's the first time we are having a proper team in place, but I think this could be ‑‑ this will be a great service to the community, this team. So think about that.

Are there any questions?

NIALL O'REILLY: I think it's fair to point out that if people are thinking of volunteering for the Code of Conduct team and they feel they don't quite have the skills but have the preparedness, there will of course be training, so don't worry if you don't have the entire skillset yet.

MIRJAM KUHNE: That's a good point. We also provide the training for the trusts contacts that are currently fulfilling part of this job, but yeah, there will definitely be more training.

SHANE KERR: Shane Kerr. Sorry if I missed it, but is there any expected time frame for when we expect to have this in force?

MIRJAM KUHNE: As soon as possible. I mean I'm really hoping to be able to issue a call for consensus right after ‑‑ soon after this meeting, and then, you know, give it a few weeks to build consensus on the list and then ‑‑ well, we were hoping to get volunteers already to get, what's the word, recruit volunteers for the team already, at least to have some show of hands or some interest. So that ideally we'll have the team in place next time.

SHANE KERR: Okay. Thank you.

NIALL O'REILLY: I'd suggest that that if anybody is minded and has the courage to volunteer already as a potential team member, they don't need to wait for all the paperwork to come through. Let's ‑‑ you know, it's an important role, it needs to be filled, serialise all the steps. Come forward.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Thanks for clarifying that. Are there any questions online? No? Any comments? Anyone else.

NIALL O'REILLY: I have just had a private question from a member of the attendance, wondering how people are to come forward if the procedure hasn't reached consensus. And the answer to that I think is contact the Chair team.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Yes. Come to either Niall or myself or you can contact the task force member still at this point I think, the task force is still active and they have done all the ground work, so Brian Nisbet is here from the task force and Dinesh was here, Salam is still here, Leo is following us online so the task force of course also for questions that you have and what that means to be on this team.

Any more questions over there? No.

Okay. Right. Next topic.

I will remember the elections. There was a RIPE Nominating Committee formed before Niall and I took office, and they went through a whole process, there are a whole bunch of RIPE documents, and they published a final report, and in that final report they issued an of recommendations.

So the final report, if you want to read it again, it's RIPE‑762, and there were basically four recommendations to the community. There are also some recommendations for a future NomCom Chair. There were four recommendations to the community. One was to document relationship, possibly consider documenting ‑‑ the recommendations are a bit short, they are very carefully drafted in the document. So it's consider documenting the relationship between the RIPE NCC and RIPE. The second one is to work on the consensus from the community about the remuneration of RIPE Chairs in the future. And then there were two recommendations related to the current documents. The one about the actual formation of the NomCom and the other document is about the actual RIPE Chair selection process.

Niall has been mostly working on the recommendation about the remuneration of our future RIPE Chairs, and has done a lot of background work there and working with various people in the community and in the RIPE NCC. I have been working on the first one, together with the RIPE NCC also. There is a draft document still in our drawers.

Then Daniel Karrenberg who was the former RIPE NomCom Chair has kindly agreed to work on the two ‑‑ on the recommendation 3 and 4. And he has actually sent a mail about this to the RIPE list but I do want to summarise here what the proposals are, because again, after the RIPE meeting, I would like to issue a consensus call on these documents.

Athina has actually been helping us a lot throughout this, addressing these recommendations.

So, there were two issues that Daniel and the NomCom realised while they were going through the process and one was an issue with the ‑‑ not an issue, some challenge or problem they faced with the random selection that they were doing to select the NomCom members. So what have somebody drops out and has a conflict, is not available any more? Do you then have to go through the random selection again or is it sufficient to have a reserve list already created throughout this first random selection that you can then fallback to? And the proposal is that that's for our community at the moment, it's sufficient. The IETF goes through a more, because we are following a lot of IETF process here, but the IETF goes through more complex system, and had some issues with that this time if any of you has been following that. For our purposes we're suggesting to do one time random selection and then have a reserve list that we can fall back to.

And the other improvement, or update that's been suggested is that the whole timeline, you know, from the selection to the nominations, RIPE meeting to the transition RIPE meeting, and there is basically the proposal to change the 60 days to 90 days before the consultation RIPE meeting because that will allow the the whole NomCom to be in place, issue the call. It was all a bit rushed this time and so the NomCom Chair I am proposing this new timeline which is in one of the documents now, because it was before it was in both documents that gets out‑of‑hand, so, we are suggesting take it out of one, put it all in only one document and updating it.

So the next step then is to, after the meeting as Daniel has already sent out all the information, to gather more feedback and then issue a consensus call.

Are there any questions about this part? Daniel is there anything you want to add? Any questions first? Concerns? Feedback? Go ahead.

DANIEL KARRENBERG: Since you asked I think it's important ‑‑ I am the former RIPE NomCom Chair of the previous NomCom ‑‑ I just want to stress that the recommendations were made by the whole NomCom and endorsed by the whole NomCom, they are not mine personally, I only chaired the NomCom and helped the NomCom to come to the final report that made the recommendations.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: My name is ‑‑ I just wanted to recommend that if you are looking at other internal governance organisation processes, how they arrange their nominating committee, I think you should also maybe look at the mistakes they have made over the years, ICANN Nominating Committee has had many challenges. I think looking at that and knowing what not to do would be good.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Yeah, thanks for this suggestion, yeah.

NIALL O'REILLY: This is a response to Farzaneh and in some sense a challenge. If you will be so kind to make a list of the ones that you think have mistakes in them so that we don't miss any, that will be helpful.

MIRJAM KUHNE: I believe when ‑‑

NIALL O'REILLY: Thanks in anticipation.

MIRJAM KUHNE: When we wrote this whole possess, we took a long time to get these RIPE documents, RIPE 72, 78 into place, so in the process we looked at others obviously and tried to take the best parts out of them but it's a good suggestion, we'll do that again now while we are updating the process.

Are there any other questions about this? Gergana?

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: It's just a comment actually. So, Andre Melancia saying "Now that things are back in person, how do handle online stuff. There is the RIPE meeting website, Meetecho, SpacialChat, the new forum, Kahoot, the individual voting by sessions, it's quite a lot." A comment to reduce please and yeah if you have any comment to that.

MIRJAM KUHNE: I assume that this is not related to the NomCom ‑‑ to the topic that we had, but in general. That's interesting, it's an interesting remark, because on the other hand people are asking us to provide more, you know, ways to participate online with us, but I see the point, you know ‑‑ the Kahoots, I thought they were fun, we don't want to reduce them, but that's a good comment. Now that you are reading out the whole list, there is a lot and maybe it's good to clarify the purpose of each of them and I know Fergal had a good presentation also will engaging with the community yesterday in the NCC Services Working Group, and obviously not everybody needs to be on every channel, but maybe it would help to have them all kind of together, clarify which is for what and give people a good overview of the purposes of all of these channels.

Any other questions about the NomCom documentation? No.

Okay. We'll move on.

Just a little bit on outreach and what we have been doing, especially also in terms of RIPE meetings. I mean you probably know we have started to have online sessions for students before each RIPE meeting where we invite some interesting speakers and they invite students, and mostly in the place ‑‑ in the countries we're going to but it's open to anybody. And then hopefully attract more participation from your people, from students from academics, it's mostly about the next generation getting them into the RIPE meeting, and hopefully attracting people from where we are going to with the RIPE meetings so that they can come and experience it.

So we have been do this, and we had some good feedback there, and I think each ‑‑ before Berlin and also here before the meeting in Belgrade, we ended up having more students actually be at the meeting, so that's great.
And of course we also continue to participate in events. I have been to some NOG meetings, go to the IETF, you know, make sure the RIPE community continues to be represented in other forums as well.

This one may be not so popular but I need to tell you.

I have been talking to the RIPE NCC and they have urged me to think about the ‑‑ to increase the meeting fees. They haven't been increased in a long long time and they are currently set to €350 per week, and with the additional fellowship options that we have in place, like the RIPE meeting fellowship, the RACI fellows, some free day tickets for students and other options for, you know, the RIPE NCC is looking to get more money in for the RIPE meetings because they of course cost money. And so the proposal is to ‑‑ or the decision we made basically is to increase the week ticket from €350 to €400. The day ticket from 125 to €130 and everything else stays the same basically. We have also compared this to other industry events like NANOG, the IETF, other NOG meetings, and that's still very moderate if you will, but we're trying to keep it accessible obviously to people also in not so wealthy countries.

Any comments, questions about that? Feedback?

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Rick Nelson. Just a quick one on the fees. There are some companies where if they are with like non‑profit organisations and so forth when they are attending meetings, if they are presented with the opportunity to pay more at a meeting they can just tick that box and that might be a way to offset the folks from developing countries giving them a lower fee.

MIRJAM KUHNE: That's an interesting thought. Thank you. We'll take note of that. And discuss this with the meeting team. I think the meeting team was also specifically interested to get ‑‑ we have been discussing like an early bird fee as well, we might implement it at a later stage because that would really also help the work of the meeting team for planning purposes, but we're not introducing that right at this point.

That's about it for the first part. Just as a reminder we have done a lot ‑‑ you know, in getting more, being more transparent and open on the website also. We have like a regular updates on RIPE Labs, there is a list of ongoing activities in the RIPE community, and some online news and so we're keeping that up to date so you can find it there.

And as you might have heard yesterday, the RIPE NCC also has a project ongoing to update the website, which will then also have maybe a better presence of the RIPE community on the website and things will be easier to find, and that are relevant for the RIPE community. So that's great.

That's it for this part. Just as a reminder, you can reach us at Chair team [at] ripe [dot] net, or individually, also Chair or Vice‑Chair [at] ripe [dot] net.

So this is the first part of the Mirjam show.

The next one will be on ‑‑ I need the next slide set ‑‑ the next one will be on the RIPE mailing list moderation, I want to give you a quick run down of the decisions we have made there. And if that's still the way you want it to happen in the future.
Just to give you some context in July when we were all on holidays, there was this horrible mail sent to the RIPE list and very quickly the RIPE NCC actually they flagged it and they were on it immediately, I think it was a weekend, it was night like, it was everybody was like ‑‑ still like, kept an eye on it, it was a really good service. Quite quickly, we agreed to basically put the whole list on moderation on emergency moderation, and it's on moderation ever since, and then since then we have spent ‑‑ I have spent a lot of time talking to other communities and to community members here to come to a best possible solution for this.

So, there are basically three aspects to this. So first is the lit moderation itself. At the moment it's Niall and myself moderating the list, at least once a day, I am trying to do it more often, it's tricky, especially during the meeting, so there might be a bit of a delay, but so far I think we have been going through it quite quickly.

I have also published a transparency report on RIPE, I'll come back to that, I want to ask you if that's still necessary, so because there was some mails that were rejected and I made a point for each of these mails to actually reach out to the sender and ask them if it's okay to reject the mails. There was no mail that was offensive or violating the Code of Conduct. They were mostly mails kind of misdirected, maybe should have gone to a different list, they were overtaken by events and so I reached out to the senders and with prior engagement or agreement we agreed to not let that mail through.

But it's all documented in this transparency report.

I said no mails rejected for the last two months, but that's not correct.

SANDER STEFFANN: I had one of my mails rejected but like you said, it was after talking about it, it turned out to be a misunderstanding, so, a job very well done. Thank you.

MIRJAM KUHNE: The point is not really to be like a gatekeeper, I just think as a moderator, the mail will go to quite a large group and if it's not necessary and it was a misunderstanding or was overtaken, then maybe it's not necessary to broadcast it.

But the other aspect to this of course are the archives. So, there was a bit of a discussion initially that offensive mails, should that stay in the archives or not so in the end also with the help of the RIPE NCC legal team we decided to ‑‑ it was basically not even an option, because it was a legal requirement, to not have illegal content on the RIPE NCC's infrastructure, but even on top of that I was convinced that it's not good to have that offensive content on the RIPE list archives because what if somebody stumbles on is and doesn't know the context. We removed it and they are still intact and replaced with some explanatory text.

Then on top of that you also have, on moderated archives, just like the member discussed list, if you are aware how that's handled, it's basically everything goes in the unmoderated archives, I was surprised to see how much crap was in there, all the spam is in there as well, so I can't recommend you to go there. There is also a big disclaimer on top, because there could be some offensive content in there and it's it's not indexed for search so it's kind of in a vault, you really have to make some effort to find it. But it's not ‑‑ it's still there for transparency reasons.

So, how do you want us to proceed? Do you want us to continue to moderate the RIPE discussion mailing list? Is it okay that the RIPE Chair team moderates it? Do we need a different process in place for that? Do we still need the transparency reports? Is that helpful? Or are the unmoderated archives enough for transparency? Any feedback.

BRIAN NISBET: Yes, please continue to moderate the list. We need to moderate this list, it's just nonsense to think otherwise I think at this point in time.

If you two are happy to do it and if fits, great. I would strongly suggest some help perhaps from the NCC on this, because you are two people, and there may be a lot of mail. You are going to be involved in the decision process of course, but there are some clear, we have done it as Working Group Chairs, it's clear, just hold that for a minute while I have a think about it. I don't know, different process, it seems to work. Publish the transparency report? Sure, does it need to be weekly? Probably not. Continue to keep the unmoderated archives? No, leave them into the heart of the sun. I don't understand why we would keep an unmoderated archive of spam and potentially offensive content. So, you know, I would just say yeah, have the moderated ones with the piece and I don't see the purpose of the other ones, thank you very much.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Thank you Brian.

SANDER STEFFANN: Yeah, we, as a community appointed you Chairs, we trust you with managing this community and like, you are doing a really good job in making sure we don't get overwhelmed with junk, and thank you a lot for that, because that's one of the things that's necessary to keep this community functional.
So, moderate whenever you see the need for it. I think you have the mandate for that. If you feel comfortable with moderating it or like Brian said, get some help, but yeah, I think as Chairs you have the mandate to keep this community functioning and I think you are doing a great job.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Thank you, Anders.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: I have actually a question, because there was a moderation in any of the lists, I mean a few years ago, I didn't even notice when the member list was actually moderated. I didn't realise there was any spam. I mean there was a lot of problem when you are sending one mail to a member list you get a bunch of automated tickets sent back to you, but there was not any spam. But now if you look at unmoderated archives, there is a bunch of, I don't know, like, you know, the Nigerian prince type of story there. So, the question is like what happened before? I don't believe ‑‑ if there was such a thing now, it should be before now as well. What happened to those mails when the list was not moderated? Where does those spam go? Is there some spam filter working at that point? That's the first point.

And aside from those spams and obviously things being figured out because they automated mails and all that, I'm actually disagree with the two gentlemen here, and I think the community list and RIPE list should ‑‑ well the member list is a different discussion and ‑‑ I believe the list should remain open, unmoderated. Moderation comes with a few problems. First of all it's a disruption of the discussions, and I mean everybody is probably aware I am pretty active in that list, especially recently. You are send in an mail and you expect a reply a few days later, across a weekend, then three days later, then also like if you send a reply to all, then you might get an immediate reply from that person, but it's not a part of the list discussion, it's kind of uncontinuous when you actually have a continuous discussion, that's first of all.

And secondly, I believe open community such as RIPE, which we supposed to be inclusive, all Internet users because everybody in the Internet is part of the community, then we're talking about building people here across all the countries and everybody, and having a small team of people to look at a moderate mail it's a bad idea for me as a community. And if the spam can be filtered out, and I have no idea how it's been done before, I mean if it's a general discussion, I think the list should remain open and I do notice that extremely offensive mail, which caused the moderation, I agree such content should not be there, it should not be anywhere, we should respect everybody, but that was one incident in I don't know how many years, 20 years of operation, do we have any example before. Should we really moderate an entire list because of one stupid mail? It seems to me too much of a cost. Thank you.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Thanks for your comments. To answer your first question, could you want to answer that Marita because I am sure the NCC ops team they have some smart filtering updates.

SPEAKER: Marita from the web team. The first time ‑‑ the first mailing list that went into moderation was Members Discuss. And it's only members that are part of that mailing list, which means if somebody who is not subscribed to that mailing list, their mail is automatically rejected. RIPE list is completely open. So anybody ‑‑ you don't have to be ‑‑ you are just a member of a community, you don't have to be a member of the LIR itself. So that's why a lot of spam is coming through and we can't stop that. And that's the difference, that's why the first one didn't have spam and this one does.

MIRJAM KUHNE: You are filtering ‑‑ that's being filtered out.

MARITA PHELAN: Yeah yeah, you can't with the RIPE list because it's open to everybody. But with Members Discuss, you have to be a member, so if your mail address is not subscribed to the mailing list you are automatically rejected and the mail doesn't come through.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Let's go through it because we have a lot ‑‑

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Yeah, well a quick clarification then, you are basically saying that the member list before, it would kind of ‑‑ it's rejecting all mails and doesn't archive any of those spams, but now anybody who doesn't subscribe to it or send in a stupid mail it will be archived in the moderated and all those mails we saw in the unmoderated archives will actually be thrown away basically, is that right? Now we don't throw them away we, are putting them in the unmoderated archive.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: I believe that's correct.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: With the RIPE list why don't we receive the stupid spam before that, if it's open, the bots will pick it up.

MIRJAM KUHNE: There are spammers in in place. 

OLIVER PAYNE: The way we have created the unmoderated list actually means that before we process, if it's subscribed to the list at all, we split it to go to the unmoderated and the moderated list. So this results in no moderation including spam or even if they subscribe to the list to the unmoderated list so, yes it catches more spam including those that are not subscribed.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Thank you. Gergana?

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: It's actually a very quick comment from Leo Vegoda. At some point it will be helpful to present the moderation reports as data rather than narrative. Just a suggestion. As data. Like, just the numbers I am assuming.

PETER KOCH: So with the current mode of operation of this moderation, I think the list doesn't fulfil its purpose any more and we might actually shut it down. It would be the consequence because what we currently do is we help support the denial of service attack against ourselves. And that makes me worry about the resilience of the community. Thank you.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Are you talking about since the moderation is on or more recently?

PETER KOCH: I said the mode of operation of this with the delays, with random flashing of messages, this doesn't support or foster a multiway communication, of course that also holds and is even worse for the members list which of course is out of scope for this session.

MIRJAM KUHNE: We could ‑‑ I mean that's why I am asking, we could have a different process so it's not Niall and myself having to do this, that could respond to that. Thanks Peter.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: So I just ‑‑ one thing, sorry, I could not find the transparency report. Do you actually say the grounds based on which you moderated the messages, like, those were like sent by is make or this was offensive?

MIRJAM KUHNE: Yes, anonymise obviously, but it gives a quick ‑‑

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Like a category. So how did you choose those categories?

MIRJAM KUHNE: They are not a list, there are not a list of categories, it's basically a sentence.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Okay, so it's ‑‑

MIRJAM KUHNE: It will say like, mail rejected because of Code of Conduct violation. It doesn't because we didn't have that, but something like that.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: The other point is this is true and this is not personal like towards you or Niall. The problem ‑‑ when we give a mandate to Chairs, then we are institutional and we need to have rules and procedures and grounds based on which we can hold those accountable, because later on, there can be a Chair that abuses that power, and just because the Chairs have that mandate, they, I believe personally, that they should not use that power whenever they want, there has to be a criterion based on which it triggers the, this kind of like power to moderate. And so I don't know if the Code of Conduct has that process like an elaborate process.

And a lot of these discussions about moderation of content and conduct online has been going on for years in social media networks, so we are not on our own, and I think we need to use their experiences as well.

And the last point is as long as we don't have those criteria and holding ‑‑ and making them to hold people accountable, I don't think the list should be moderated.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Thank you. That's why I am bringing this up here because we had to put some emergency moderation in place in the summer, and in that mail I said like after the summer I said I would bring it up here, so I summarised basically what I said here back then and I wanted to get more feedback here so that's why we're doing this.

NIALL O'REILLY: I think we have already covered part of Farzaneh's concerns in RIPE 78, there is a recall procedure, so, you and I, Mirjam, we can be held to account.

MIRJAM KUHNE: RIPE 78, as it the RIPE Chair selection process ‑‑ ripe‑728, RIPE Chair selection process, that's the ultimate recall procedure for the RIPE Chairs. But I think there may be a bit more procedure.

BENEDIKT STOCKEBRAND: I think the moderation comes at a price. A twofold price. Basically one is, as Peter mentioned, the discussion is slowed down no matter what you do. So, we might consider ending the moderation if things calm down at some point and I say that at your discretion because the other price is basically your time. The question you should ask yourself is: Is it worth your time that you put in there? And that's something you should reconsider every once in a while, so maybe we can go back to some more productive thing if spam ‑‑ if these mails stop. But that's really up to you, in my opinion.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Thank you. Or I get some help from the RIPE NCC as has been suggested legacy server before, that's also of course an option I guess.

DANIEL KARRENBERG: I am one of the founders of RIPE. I think, to answer your questions I think the RIPE list should be moderated. I think that the concern about the delays and the lack of activity do not apply to the RIPE list. We have to be conscious of what the RIPE list actually is, what the purpose of that list is. There are other lists that we use for high frequency and sometimes controversial discussions.

Secondly, I think it's very important to have the unmoderated archives for transparency. I think it's important that people can independently verify what has been moderated out, If they really desire to.

And one can discuss with the RIPE NCC about the technicality of omitting spam even from the unmoderated list, I don't really care one way or the other, but I think it's important if we have a process of moderation, that there can be this check by anybody.

The transparency report, I think it's good to report, but I would be happy if you do that at every RIPE meeting, or even less frequently.

And then reacting to ‑‑

MIRJAM KUHNE: Just to clarify because I started this before we had the unmoderated archives in place so I felt it was important to document what I have done until we had ‑‑

DANIEL KARRENBERG: Until that happened. But it's, if it's not too much work give us a summary every meeting or every year, or when something significant happens.

Reacting to Farzaneh's suggestion, or request of having rules, I think we have quite clear rules, they are called the Code of Conduct. We recently agreed them, and if I am not totally is maken, the purpose of the moderation is to enforce the Code of Conduct in the first place, right. So that's solved.

JIM REID: I want to pick up the point that Farzaneh made about process of procedures and all that. The first reaction so that is we are not the ITU. Please remember that.
We really don't need nor processes and procedures because we just waste time finessing what the fine point of what the procedures will be and we are very, very bad at doing that, it takes a long time to reach a decision on it, so just don't, please. Apply common sense. That's what we are supposed to be known for, being pragmatic and taking a common sense approach to things and as I have already said, if there is a concern for example the moderator, whoever that may be, oversteps the mark, we already have a process for that because we have a recall capability of the appointment of the Chair and the Vice‑Chair, I think that's good enough to deal with potential problems that may arise, if some future RIPE Chairs did things in a bad way. So we don't need to worry about that. When we do appoint someone to these leadership positions in a community we are going to appoint someone that's sensible, we're not going to put in some nut case, that's for sure.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Maybe as an addition also there was also the purpose of having these transparency reports, I am nearly kind of rejecting all kind of mails, I am sure somebody will point that out to me.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: I would make one final quick point on this. In Code of Conduct, one important point of Code of Conduct is inclusiveness. And it's important for the entire RIPE community and we're talking about 70 countries, nearly a billion population. RIPE community even after 30 years it's still relatively, small, let's face it most people don't know this community and most people, even if they are a part of a community supposedly because they are an Internet user in the region but they don't really know of its existence. In order for the RIPE community and the RIPE list which is an important instrument of the community to keep growing to a size, to be more inclusive to a wider audience, to a younger audience, the simple number doesn't support moderation, because nearly a billion people of the community members, and if they all join here, how many people we have? I don't know, 20,000 chatting, really? In order for it to be inclusive, we should not sacrifice the future growth and promoting growth of the entire community in a cost of a single stupid mail. Of course, if the community grows to a certain size and if there were ‑‑ if there were to be a need of more stability there, we might consider moderating in a better way, I agree with what the gentleman just said that it's a RIPE community, common sense should prevail and the common sense for such a large community must magically we will need open space for discussion to be more inclusive. Thank you.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Thank you. Maybe just one comment.
And I want also then maybe close the mics after this.
That, I don't know, you calculated this, look at the mission of the RIPE community and who we are actually trying to reach out to and who we are going to include. I hope you are not going to be a billion but we have a certain scope. But...

SANDER STEFFANN: I just want to respond to that comment. Because, there are also nice words like inclusiveness and stuff in there, but that little speech of conflating a whole bunch of different things that have nothing to do with this. I think this has nothing to do with inclusiveness or things like that. This is just keeping the community functional, so I think it's exactly the opposite of what was just said. So, I totally don't agree with those comments.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Goer Anna. Another comment online from Andre Melancia speaking on his behalf. The Code of Conduct is for all participation in RIPE including all in person events, social activities, any Internet participation including the mailing lists, realtime video or chat functionality, and any communication technologies to be deployed in the future.

So this is just a comment.

BENEDIKT STOCKEBRAND: Just one thing about what both Jim and [Yang] Liu just said. First off we solve problems when they occur. If they have 20,000 people active in the RIPE community we can take care of that at that point. And to process, process is probably a bad word, what we need is mandate. And I think you have that and I think that should be all you need. Do at your discretion decide what makes sense, and if anything else, report about your decisions on the mailing list if it's time critical or here, and if somebody is unhappy with it, we'll take care of it then.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Thank you.

All right. Now, to something a bit more lively and fun. It's still going to be me, sorry about that, but the Secret Working Group.

We had some comments over the last few meetings like what is that? Why this, you know, guys coming up on stage at the end of RIPE meeting and cracking jokes? And who provides the content? And how is that valid? And does it go through the Programme Committee? So I thought maybe I want to lift a bit of a tip ‑‑

NIALL O'REILLY: It's the Vice‑Chair again. A small comment. People who know about the Secret Working Group will know that whenever it's mentioned, the stenography usually stops, that's not the case this time.

MIRJAM KUHNE: This is not the Secret Working Group. I'm not a member of the Secret Working Group. Thank you for continuing ‑‑ I didn't see, thanks for pointing that out. So yeah, I just want to clarify, especially for new participants in the RIPE community, what that actually is and how that works and how it started.

Now actually nobody really can tell me how this started. This is already a good secret, apparently. But what I found out is that there was at some point people wrote limericks in the RIPE community and they found a few jems in the RIPE database, so there are actually then be formed, they are not called limericks, they are poem objects, so there are poems in the RIPE Database, and this one here "If your secret just mustn't get out and it's email you're worried about, there's a method you see, you can use BGP." That was one of them I found.

There is another one actually about Niall. It makes remarkable recovery from medical Nialllogism diagnosis ... held out little hope without flagrant recourse to trope, Niall's exotic condition now merits rendition as neuro cardiogenic syncope."
It's all in the database, there is one more I found "it's not DNS, there is no way it was a DNS, it was DNS. A fog haiku often shared while wait are for TTL to expire."
I think it's wonderful we have these poems in the RIPE Database, it's serious, but at some point somebody decided it was cool to, you know, rhyme and to create limericks and poems and the RIPE NCC agreed to create, or the RIPE community, I don't even know how this all came about to create this object type and it's maintained ever since. You might remember this.

DANIEL KARRENBERG: You really want to know? This was when the RIPE Database software was written in C, and there was one person whom I'll not name, but who was standing very, very close to me, was maintaining that software and the processes for getting that software and its functional changed were very, very, very informal. And there were Limerick officianados in the RIPE community at the time who suggested over beverages that it would be a great idea to have a Limerick object at which point the person I was mentioning, who was a computer scientist by training said networks that's much to restrictive, let's make a poem object. And during that RIPE meeting, suddenly the RIPE database started to recognise poem objects.

MIRJAM KUHNE: All right. That's how it started because I found here even different as you can already see here, there are different poetic forms that you can choose from in the RIPE Database, I also found out, I understand that the form is the description of the form is written in the form of the object, so this is a haiku, describing the haiku form. There is a prose form. You can read it yourself.
And there is also a limerick form.

And you can search them, they are all in the database, it's amazing. I mean it's usually ‑‑ it often is tied to a meeting, but, you know, something cool that happened at a meeting or somebody couldn't show up or something happened. But there is also some more community related topics, and they are often a bit more kind of self reflective, not taking ourselves too seriously and I'll come back to that.

I also found this ‑‑ let's go back one more. Because at some point, apparently it was decided to not only register them in the database, but to ‑‑ because, you know, not everybody will be aware of it in Phantom but somebody decided to read them out at the end of the meeting. And so ‑‑ and then this is kind of how the Secret Working Group was formed, some people felt responsible for continuing the ‑‑ the formation of these poems and to reading them out at the end of the meeting.

So I found also this from RIPE 40. "RIPE 40 was marked by the crash of Swiss Air which was lacking in cash, Hans Petter was stranded when his aeroplane landed and his luggage was left with the trash."
So that was all right part of a slide that was shown at RIPE 40. There is some kind of a secret archive online that I found that I could take some of these gems out, and then to though you here.

They weren't always poems. There were also others, so once the Secret Working Group got a bit more established, secretly, there are also other things that was noted. For instance at meetings like funny things like this, you know, signs during a meeting that were a little confusing and that were then shown at the end of the meeting and everybody had a good laugh. And then I think the highlight of all of this was the famous song, I am not going to sing it to you and we're not going to play it to you, but ‑‑ some of you will remember, it was a RIPE 55 and it was Gary was his name I think, it was a participant who came only once, it was his first and last RIPE meeting and he left us with this fantastic legacy where he was ‑‑ this was in the the Krasnapolski hotel in Amsterdam, on Friday after the Plenary, he just sat down and he could also play the piano, and he was singing this based on ‑‑ there is the ‑‑ this is of course also in the database, it's also data objects with the lyrics of that song and it's on YouTube and you can find it also on the website so I just put the link in here, and you watch the video. It was hilarious and everybody was standing up and we had fun and was singing the chorus. I was just ‑‑ that was good.

But so, why are we doing this silly stuff? You know ‑‑ is that Hans Petter there? Yes, it's easy to find. I wasn't going to bother the tech team to actually play it here. But yes, it's definitely worth listening to it and looking at it.

What's behind it and why are we doing this silly stuff? This is serious work we're doing here at the RIPE community and doing business and we are agreeing on procedures and policies and ‑‑ and then all of a sudden at the end of meeting some guys get up and tell some jokes and people are actually spending time during the week, during the work week to come up with these jokes and with these rhymes and poems and slides and, you know, take note of interesting challenges or, you know, funny things that happen during the week, and gather is all.

And so, I came up with a few reasons. Obviously we have a tradition and we have, as a community, you know, this is kind of part of our culture and decided at some point and I think it's really interesting to note, you know, that there are people in this community who do this and who are not taking ourselves too seriously from time to time, look at ourselves, self reflect, like wow this really went wrong rather than just seriously talking about it. Actually taking it lightly and making a joke out of it.

I think it's important and also take a step back sometimes and observe ourselves and it kind of creates community and it creates community memory and ties us together as a community.

However, I remember again Fergal's presentation from yesterday in the NCC Services Working Group, of course it's all about shared experiences, right. So, as oldies, we know where all this came from. Daniel just gave us the background. But new people go like, what is this? And how do I participate and who comes up with this? And as I said this is going through the PC or, you know, is there Secret Working Group Chair? There isn't. We need you, we need more people to participate in this, if you all think this is still worth continuing of course, you know, maybe you think just kill the silly stuff, it's ‑‑ we have a Code of Conduct now so maybe this is not really appropriate. So ‑‑ but would I actually advocate for breathing new life into this and at this stage I really think ‑‑ ‑‑ I ‑‑ ‑‑ I thought it was secret!!

They have been carrying this work throughout the pandemic. I don't know these names just came to mind. And I would like to thank them to actually make sure we still have this tradition. I think they want more people to participate, and usually what happened in the past, at the RIPE dinners, was always a good opportunity to come together and reflect on what happened during the week. Now during the pandemic we didn't have physical RIPE dinners and still we had the Secret Working Group continue, which was fantastic.

I was thinking it's a good opportunity also for relative newcomers, because I think you come here with fresh eyes and different views on things. You notice things that maybe I wouldn't notice any more because it's so part of the tradition. So, it would be great if more people would participate. Of course since the Secret Working Group is secret there is no mailing address there is no mailing list, so all I can do is come to me, if you want to participate, or find other people who are interested, you know, today or during the dinner today would be a good opportunity, and be creative. I mean there are so many other skills in the community than just technical skills, this would be great to cherish those, that was my advocacy to so keep the Secret Working Group alive and put somebody with more diverse participation that is also then creates kind of internal peer review of the content.

SANDER STEFFANN: I just want to second what you said. Like, we sometimes all take ourselves way too seriously, guilty as charged. And what you mentioned about the Code of Conduct, this isn't about offending others, this is about make fun of ourselves as a community. So it shouldn't be a problem at all and the Secret Working Group on Fridays is always the highlight of the end of the meeting and I look forward to it with great anticipation. Like you said, I think it's really something that binds us together as a community. You know, having a good laugh, making fun of silly things that happened. So, yeah, it's really appreciated and I think it's really valuable. So, whoever you are, thank you.

MIRJAM KUHNE: I agree with all what you said, but I think we need to be careful to not single other people out or make kind of feel I don't know what you say, strange others because they don't know what this is all about. So...

BRIAN NISBET: It would be great to hear younger newer members talk about this but what I think is really important, having spent a lot of time working on the Code of Conduct and talking about it and advocating for it, is that it is not a killjoy document, and if it becomes that, if it harms our community, then that is a failure of that document. That's a failure of that process. And I know there is going to be ‑‑ I know there are different points of view of what institutes that, but something like the Secret Working Group should easily be able to exist within our Code of Conduct and be continue to be brilliant within our Code of Conduct, and I think that it's that, it's the awareness of maybe sure, maybe not saying some things you would have said in the past, but that's been comedy for the last 2,000 years or more, you know, and I think that's important and I really want to see it continue and I want us to be able to, all of these facets to be able to work together, to building and continue to strengthen our community.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Lars Liman, a long time RIPE attender, longer than Mirjam, not quite as long as Daniel. To me, this is a very important part of the RIPE community and how we work, because this is a small doses of humour, and I try to take the attitude towards life that money makes the world go around, but humour is the lubrication in the bearings, it makes it a little easier, it makes it easier to get along with each other and I kind of observed that people who are anxious or angry or annoyed, they don't laugh. You'll never see an angry person laugh, relaxed. So, you know, tickle people to laugh, tickle ‑‑ you know, insert a little humour in their lives, that makes it easier to go along and that's very important. And I will point out that in the limericks that ‑‑ the database object that you showed, that the Liman Wan pun maintainer is not me.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Franzika Lichtblau, speaking for myself. Not that long time attendee, but I would like to share some experience I made in other communities. Actually thank you Brian for making that comment about the Code of Conduct, because many people actually were concerned that the Code of Conduct will be a killjoy document and I saw other communities that I used to be part of lose their sense of humour because they became too serious about what is right, what is wrong, we don't need to be too overly paranoid because this community, at least in my perspective, has been well self regulating especially in coming up with this Code of Conduct, and by all means, please let's keep that humour we need that self reflection about what we are doing, even ‑‑ and especially across generations, and I would encourage everyone who is like be wild with what they saw on the stage with the Secret Working Group, come to anyone who looks like a well‑known figure in that community, go to the Working Group Chairs with the yellow badges or to anyone that sticks out, they will be happily giving you context, explaining you some jokes and even have a controversial discussion with you about that because this is what we are for. And I think there is a second point we should keep in mind, and that is usually we take a lot of time in this community to come up with programmes, I know a little bit of that Working Group Chairs do that as well, but what the Secret Working Group actually does, they kind of shadow us during the week, what we are doing, and they remind us about the great week that we were having and sometimes also about some of other lapses. But they do it while they are doing all their other things, so yes, maybe some people may not think everything is appropriate all the time, but please do consider in which context this is happening.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Thank you.

VESNA MANOJLOVIC: Speaking more myself as a killjoy, I'd like to challenge people of the existing Secret Working Group and the newcomers who will join to make the jokes that are punching up rather than the jokes that are punching down. It's possible it's harder so please take that challenge.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Thank you.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Mars Larson NLnet Labs, thank you for helping me discover this very nice aspect of this community. This is my first live meeting and I am going to research some poems.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Hello. Thank you for finally explaining a bit better what the Secret Working Group actually is, and I I have an actual question for a change, which is can anyone with a RIPE account just create those poems?

MIRJAM KUHNE: Yes, you mean in the RIPE Database? Yes you can add a poem.

SHANE KERR: It's open, anyone can create an object. Especially ‑‑ it's especially easy if you are already an LIR because then you are already got contact objects and maintainers and things like that.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: On Thursday's Plenary community, much was discussed on the unity; the secret group was outed but no one screamed or shouted. We need new folks for continuity.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: I mean it's good that now we have this video from a Plenary so next time a newcomer asks what the Secret Working Group is, you could just point to that video. By the way it would be fun if this video disappears from the archives.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Thank you. A few more things ‑‑ we have sometime for open mic. I should not forget to say that ‑‑ it's too late ‑‑ it's too late now. Sorry PC elections closed. I was going to say about the PC elections but they are closed. I didn't watch the time. Sorry about that.

And there was one other topic that we need to bring up, which is, traditionally the Closing Plenary, but since we have the Community Plenary I think this is the right place to bring up new activities, new proposals for formation of Working Groups or task forces and any other activities and I have one request and I think Shane wants to talk about that.

SHANE KERR: Thank you. I don't have slides or anything. This is just to let everyone know about a task force that we're booting up, and this is mostly the work of Gerard Demass, one the co‑chairs of the DNS Working Group who unfortunately can't be here so I am trying to channel his energy now. Basically this is an effort to try to document some best practices around running a public DNS resolver. There was some interest from the European Union, I think last year, in creating a partially funded public resolver that the EU is involved in. And after a lot of discussions and soul searching, I think we came to realise that it's not completely terrible idea to have a public resolver within the EU and not have all of them run by American corporations. Having said that, we don't have any interest in actually doing that work ourselves, but as a DNS community, we think that we probably have expertise to make some good recommendations, so that's basically the task force is to come up with a RIPE document maybe to explaining what we think would be best practices and what we, as a community want a public DNS resolver to look like. This is also ‑‑ also we have talked to the Cooperation Working Group, so ‑‑ because they know about these governments and things like that. And we are looking for volunteers and it will be done publicly and in the RIPE way. So that's it.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Jan Zorz with my hat of the best operational practices task force. You know that we have the best counter operational practices task force and I think you would be welcome.

SHANE KERR: Well I think almost certainly if we haven't finished the work by the next RIPE meeting, we'll come and present it, but in any case we can send mail to the list about it.

JAN ZORZ: Yeah, and you can talk about the draft or just the table of content and also ask people to help you out with it. Okay.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Hi. Suzanne Taylor RIPE NCC. I am supposed to be scribing right now but I took a break just to say I think this is a fantastic idea. Within the RIPE NCC, I work on the public policy team, and help form our responses to different EU regulatory proposals. And I just can't tell you how necessary this is. This is something that I think is coming sort of whether we like it or not, and I think having a technical community give their input is incredibly valuable and we have seen actually how open different policy makers are to that feedback. I would encourage you guys to come together and try to do this. You have an opportunity here to have a voice, and it's just so important for that voice to be heard I think. So thank you.

SHANE KERR: That's good to hear. I will say that I haven't thought at all about the RIPE NCC's role in this, we haven't thought about any of the lobbying efforts or anything like that. Maybe that's something ‑‑ I don't know if the RIPE NCC wants to have someone join in the work and maybe even as an observer.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Actually I meant to say like please, if we can help in anyway, helping you formulate a response, helping you understand, you know, how to put that together doing any, any support we can offer in terms of writing or editing and partnering on that, of course we will be there at your disposal.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Tobias Knecht speaking for myself and known for doing stupid things. Talking about the RIPE NCC could be doing for such an open resolver project I recently thought about that as well and I found the prefix 2 A1 B and the whole /16 thereof is part of the RIPE region, and actually at least a/31 prefix it currently allocated so thinking about the major draw back of Quad8, Quad1 and Quad9 being the nature of IPv4 addresses and it might be an actually interesting thought to actually think about how could we build and Anycast audited and short public DNS resolver where people can just participate using an allocation for that prefix, because that is short and memorable.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: I wanted to express interest in this thing that is being proposed.

SHANE KERR: Thank you.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Lars Liman. I want to actually thank you Suzanne and the team for all the efforts that they do in engaging with various related government agencies in all kinds of forms throughout the globe. It's possible that many of you don't see this but that's actually a serious effort that goes into maintaining the work room that we have to operate in and to give them the tools to continue to do that work for us is worthwhile, very much so. So thank you.


SHANE KERR: All right. Great. If anyone has any questions about it, I am here, I am leaving tomorrow after lunch, if they want to talk in person. Otherwise we'll be online. Thank you.

MIRJAM KUHNE: Thanks Shane. I guess you'll collaborate with people and the NCC, and you already have a volunteer, you probably also had some discussion in the DNS Working Group and the Cooperation Working Group. Come to us, like, Niall and myself if you need any help with the whole process if you decide to set up a task force, but it sounds like there is support for this in this community so that's why we wanted to bring this to the Community Plenary. So we might have a new maybe short term task force set‑up soon.

Right. There are five more minutes. Is there any other thing, any other topics, Gergana has a comment from online.

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: We just got a question before we started the presentation for the Secret Working Group but it was about the previous discussion on the moderation, so Wolfgang Zenger from Punk DA asks: Would it be possible to deactivate moderation in general but keep an emergency button available to activate temporary moderation in case of another incident? So, to disable moderation in general, but if there is another incident, be able to like enable emergency moderation or something like that.

MIRJAM KUHNE: That's basically how we have done it, but that means you have to wait for the next incident to happen, and, you know, possibly offend everyone on the list, but yes, thanks, that's how it worked this time, yeah.

All right. If there is nothing else then enjoy your dinner.

I am skipping one session, there is a short break and there will be the diversity in tech or diversity equity and inclusion session, however you want to call it, here in this room, and we'll have an interesting discussion. It's a bit of free flow this time, come with ideas, we want to hear more what you think we should do in terms of diversity and inclusion, but it can also be related to the Code of Conduct and maybe to the presentation we heard earlier in the week. So I hope many of you will participate. See you after the break.

(Coffee break)