On 19/10/2017 00:53, William Sylvester 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).
RIPE discussions and actions have always had a strong element of considering the benefit of the RIPE community as a whole versus the interests of individuals or smaller groups. We also have a habit of considering the larger Internet community beyond RIPE. As such we have set an example that has often been followed by other regions. This has also enormously strengthened our standing in the world in general. I see no way to effectively formalise this. There is no way we can make effective rules to prevent us from becoming selfish as a group if all of us really want to be. > 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 has been beaten to death. For the record: Past practice has shown this to work extremely well. The real reason for this success is that there is a huge overlap between RIPE and the RIPE NCC membership. The system is constructed to ensure this. This overlap, and this overlap alone, ensures that the right things happen. The important reason for RIPE and the RIPE NCC being different is that RIPE is totally open to anyone. This ensures that everyone can be heard without any formal barrier. Once money and contracts come in, a more defined group needs to take decisions. For this we constructed the RIPE NCC as an association, the most democratic legal form we could find. Again: it is the *huge* overlap between the RIPE community and the RIPE NCC membership that makes this work. I know that this is at the margin of the charter of the task force, but: The community needs to watch carefully that the composition of the RIPE NCC membership is such that this overlap continues to exist. If for instance the composition of the RIPE NCC membership were to over-represent a particular group, such as address brokers, the whole system may become unstable. > 3. There is no definition of consensus as it is used within the RIPE > community. Is this something that is worth documenting? > We will share some more details on this mailing list after our presentation > at RIPE 75. Personally I do not thing this is "worth documenting". See my other message about adding formalism. Additionally: The IETF has a considerable history of work in this area. I suggest we learn from it. I do not suggest we copy it. Daniel speaking as co-founder of RIPE, initial architect of the RIPE NCC association, steady contributor to both and *not* speaking as a RIPE NCC employee
