> On 18 Oct 2017, at 23:53, William Sylvester <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 1. Do you think the "public benefit" or "the greater good" is a core > aspirational factor in decisions made by the RIPE community? Alternatively, > are RIPE community members merely working/cooperating for their own benefit? > (If the community is only working for its own benefit, why have a last /8 > policy that benefits newcomers, for example).
Depends. Sometimes "public benefit" can have unintended consequences. It's clear -- or should be clear -- the public benefit aspirations apply to stewardship of numbering resources. [But that is less of a concern now that address policy is essentially a no-op these days.] The aspiration would also apply to some outreach activities requested by the community: for instance engagement with law enforcement, regulators and governments. Obviously it also applies to running K and maintaining the database too. I'm not so sure the "greater good" argument holds up so well for other NCC activities since IMO they should probably be spun out from the NCC. > 2. There is no explicit obligation anywhere that the RIPE NCC will adhere to > policies developed by the RIPE community. Strictly speaking, the RIPE NCC is > accountable to its membership only. Does the community feel that the RIPE NCC > should make a declaration or perhaps sign an MoU stating that it will follow > RIPE community policies? This is a very, very silly idea. Sorry. 1) Who would/could sign that MoU with the NCC? The RIPE community has no legal identity (by design) so it cannot enter into a contract or any other quasi-legal agreement. 2) If a declaration like this was somehow legally enforcable, that will not help if RIPE develops policies which are opposed by the NCC membership or not in the membership's best interest. If we ever get into a scenario like that, a declaration or MoU is not going to make it easier to resolve the conflict. I think it'll make reconciliation harder. There would be endless meta-arguments about what the MoU means or intended rather than fixing the underlying problem. Add lawyers to taste. 3) Suppose RIPE develops a policy that instructs Axel to hand out €100 banknotes at Centraal Station until the NCC's reserves are gone. Should he do that just because this hypothetical declaration/MoU obliges him to do it? There's probably no need to formalise the NCC-RIPE relationship with anything more than a sentence saying "The NCC (Board) will take account of the policies developed by RIPE whenever it deploys and operates services". ie The NCC listens to RIPE but isn't compelled to obey no matter what. > 3. There is no definition of consensus as it is used within the RIPE > community. Is this something that is worth documenting? No. The dictionary definition should be enough. Failing that, there's RFC7282.
