> On 19 Oct 2017, at 09:24, Jim Reid <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 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.
I find myself mostly agreeing with Jim here but his examples are more instantiated but the NCC and haven’t really been brought to the RIPE community. Not that I think they would disagree BTW. >> 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? +1 on all that Jim has said above! Many others have already said similar things and I agree with this. > 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. Agreed. But this could be a board resolution. >> 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. Yes, and this has been discussed at length before. I would start by evaluating if something new has come to light since then. Best Regards, - kurtis - -- Kurt Erik Lindqvist, CMO London Internet Exchange Ltd, 5th Floor, Monument Place, 24 Monument Street. London. EC3R 8AJ Registered in England number 3137929 Phone: +44 (0) 20 7645 3528 Mobile: +44 (0) 78 8580 7418 https://www.linx.net/ "Working for the Internet" sip:[email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
