RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE 75
Dear colleagues, Over the past year, our task force has been reviewing the structures, documentation, and processes of RIPE to identify our accountability as an organization. At the last RIPE meeting, we finalized our mission and scope which we continue to work against. We will be giving an update on our work at RIPE 75, on Monday 23 October at 16:00 local time (UTC+4). We invite you to attend and encourage you to comment from the floor or via remote participation. We have allocated plenty of time for comments and we'd like to hear your thoughts. In case you are not familiar with the task force and our work, here are a few key details. The task force was established at RIPE 73 in Madrid. Our focus is to identify the areas of accountability and to report back to the community with a review of RIPE's accountability. It is our goal to provide a final report which will include suggestions where the task force sees opportunity for improvement. The greater RIPE community will then decide how to respond or what actions to take. The task force will not be making corrective changes, that will be the responsibility of the community. We are mindful of the impact our recommendations might have on the community. Our intent is not to create bureaucracy, but instead to simplify and empower the values that have established RIPE and sustained the community for so many years. With that in mind, we have a few questions that have come up in our recent discussions that we would like to pose to the community. You can reply on this mailing list, or give us your feedback during our presentation at RIPE 75. 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). 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? 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. We look forward to seeing everyone in Dubai next week and to receive community feedback on our progress. On behalf of the Accountability Task Force, William Sylvester, Chair
On 18 Oct 2017, at 23:53, William Sylvester <william.sylvester@addrex.net> 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.
On 19/10/17 09:24, Jim Reid wrote:
On 18 Oct 2017, at 23:53, William Sylvester <william.sylvester@addrex.net> wrote:
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.
Jim beat me to it (they obviously get up earlier North of The Border). The NCC Board does of course take account of policies, and also comments on them as part of the evaluation process that the NCC does during policy development. In all cases up until now we have instructed the NCC to follow policy. However, as board members we have certain fiduciary duties which cannot be overridden by policy. Faced with a situation such as Jim describes we have two choices: not implement the policy or resign and hope that someone else agrees to carry the can. Nigel Chairman RIPE NCC Board
Hi Nigel, On 19.10.2017 10:36, Nigel Titley wrote:
The NCC Board does of course take account of policies, and also comments on them as part of the evaluation process that the NCC does during policy development. In all cases up until now we have instructed the NCC to follow policy. However, as board members we have certain fiduciary duties which cannot be overridden by policy. Faced with a situation such as Jim describes we have two choices: not implement the policy or resign and hope that someone else agrees to carry the can.
maybe that would be something then that could be put into the board's rules of internal procedure: that the board sees to have all RIPE policies be implemented by the NCC to the greatest extend possible, but limited to the board's fiduciary duties? Best, -C.
On 19/10/2017 10:27, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
Hi Nigel,
The NCC Board does of course take account of policies, and also comments on them as part of the evaluation process that the NCC does during policy development. In all cases up until now we have instructed the NCC to follow policy. However, as board members we have certain fiduciary duties which cannot be overridden by policy. Faced with a situation such as Jim describes we have two choices: not implement the policy or resign and hope that someone else agrees to carry the can. maybe that would be something then that could be put into the board's rules of internal procedure: that the board sees to have all RIPE
On 19.10.2017 10:36, Nigel Titley wrote: policies be implemented by the NCC to the greatest extend possible, but limited to the board's fiduciary duties?
If it makes people happier then I'm sure we could do this. I'm generally against additional complication, especially where past practice doesn't give cause to worry, but as I say it doesn't really bother me. Nigel
On 19/10/2017 12:21, Nigel Titley wrote:
I'm generally against additional complication, especially where past practice doesn't give cause to worry, but as I say it doesn't really bother me.
For what the opinion of one of the initial architects of this is worth: Complication and over-specification bothers me greatly. Nothing good has ever come of it. A lot of headaches and some real badness have. Any unnecessary formalism creates friction losses at the very least. I encourage everyone proposing additional formalism to first state very clearly the concrete *need* for adding it and to provide examples of concrete instances where the absence of such formalism has caused problems. Speculative instances in the future only count if there is consensus that they are either very likely to occur or have catastrophic consequences. In the latter case additional scrutiny of whether the added formalism will actually prevent the catastrophe is required. Repeat: state a *need* not a desire or other lesser reason. 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
+1 Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen Tahar Schaa Management Consultant Cassini Consulting GmbH Bennigsen-Platz 1 40474 Düsseldorf T +49 (0) 151 11 44 38 75 mail tahar.schaa@cassini.de visit www.cassini.de Think green - keep it on the screen! -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: ripe-list [mailto:ripe-list-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Daniel Karrenberg Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Oktober 2017 12:46 An: Betreff: Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE 75 On 19/10/2017 12:21, Nigel Titley wrote:
I'm generally against additional complication, especially where past practice doesn't give cause to worry, but as I say it doesn't really bother me.
For what the opinion of one of the initial architects of this is worth: Complication and over-specification bothers me greatly. Nothing good has ever come of it. A lot of headaches and some real badness have. Any unnecessary formalism creates friction losses at the very least. I encourage everyone proposing additional formalism to first state very clearly the concrete *need* for adding it and to provide examples of concrete instances where the absence of such formalism has caused problems. Speculative instances in the future only count if there is consensus that they are either very likely to occur or have catastrophic consequences. In the latter case additional scrutiny of whether the added formalism will actually prevent the catastrophe is required. Repeat: state a *need* not a desire or other lesser reason. 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
Dear Nigel! May i clarify some things? Did i get right, that "RIPE NCC is secretariat for community" is a fairy tale, told to RIPE Meetings newcomers? And relations of RIPE NCC to RIPE Community are just 4 letters E I P R in the name? And Number Resources allocation in this region happens not on behalf of Community, but because of some kind of MoUs signed by Dutch association with American corporation owned by other American corporation? And all those are official statements of the RIPE NCC Executive Board? Kind regards, Alexander Isavnin
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.
Jim beat me to it (they obviously get up earlier North of The Border).
The NCC Board does of course take account of policies, and also comments on them as part of the evaluation process that the NCC does during policy development. In all cases up until now we have instructed the NCC to follow policy. However, as board members we have certain fiduciary duties which cannot be overridden by policy. Faced with a situation such as Jim describes we have two choices: not implement the policy or resign and hope that someone else agrees to carry the can.
Nigel Chairman RIPE NCC Board
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
Dear Nigel!
May i clarify some things?
Did i get right, that "RIPE NCC is secretariat for community" is a fairy tale, told to RIPE Meetings newcomers? No, RIPE NCC is a membership association which carries out Network coordination activities on behalf of its membership and generally governed by policies formulated by the RIPE community.
And relations of RIPE NCC to RIPE Community are just 4 letters E I P R in the name? In practice no, as, except in extremely strange circumstances, the RIPE NCC conducts activities according to policies formulated by the RIPE community.
And Number Resources allocation in this region happens not on behalf of Community, but because of some kind of MoUs signed by Dutch association with American corporation owned by other American corporation? Completely incorrect.
And all those are official statements of the RIPE NCC Executive Board? No they are statements made by me, wearing my Chairman hat. I'm happy to take off the hat and make the statements as Nigel Titley, Internet
On 19/10/2017 10:56, Alexander Isavnin wrote: person at large, if it makes you happier. What Jim and I were both trying to say, and obviously something got lost in translation, is that ever since the PDP's inception the NCC has carried out the policies as formulated by the RIPE Community, without exception, even when this has cost the RIPE NCC membership considerable amounts of money. However, because we are bound by fiduciary duty (ie we mustn't do anything that's illegal under Dutch law) we *cannot* agree to do absolutely *anything* that might come out of the policy process. To take a ludicrous example, suppose the community asked us to sign an MOU with a Colombian drug cartel, something which under the PDP they could actually ask us to do, we would decline courteously. Nigel
Kind regards, Alexander Isavnin
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. Jim beat me to it (they obviously get up earlier North of The Border).
The NCC Board does of course take account of policies, and also comments on them as part of the evaluation process that the NCC does during policy development. In all cases up until now we have instructed the NCC to follow policy. However, as board members we have certain fiduciary duties which cannot be overridden by policy. Faced with a situation such as Jim describes we have two choices: not implement the policy or resign and hope that someone else agrees to carry the can.
Nigel Chairman RIPE NCC Board
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
Dear Nigel! Thank you for the answers (in both capacities). Because we are in "RIPE Accountability" thread i do not think, that such answers are sufficient. Yes, it's very unusual combination of Dutch nonprofit, community, some international relations, shared resources etc. I feel you feel skeptical about Accountability Task Force, but unfortunately we need to write down and state openly some things, which are considered "well known" to Internet pioneers. On 2017-10-19 12:17:43 CET, Nigel Titley wrote:
Did i get right, that "RIPE NCC is secretariat for community" is a fairy tale, told to RIPE Meetings newcomers? No, RIPE NCC is a membership association which carries out Network coordination activities on behalf of its membership and generally governed by policies formulated by the RIPE community. "No it's not fairy tale" or "No, it's not being told"? :) https://ripe74.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/24-Newcomers-Intro_... Slide #3
And relations of RIPE NCC to RIPE Community are just 4 letters E I P R in the name? In practice no, as, except in extremely strange circumstances, the RIPE NCC conducts activities according to policies formulated by the RIPE community. Yes, NCC is not simple association. Accountability of NCC and Community towards each other is a difficult question.
And Number Resources allocation in this region happens not on behalf of Community, but because of some kind of MoUs signed by Dutch association with American corporation owned by other American corporation? Completely incorrect. What is correct? What is the role of RIPE Community in the correct answer (and why)?
And all those are official statements of the RIPE NCC Executive Board? No they are statements made by me, wearing my Chairman hat. I'm happy to take off the hat and make the statements as Nigel Titley, Internet person at large, if it makes you happier.
What Jim and I were both trying to say, and obviously something got lost in translation, is that ever since the PDP's inception the NCC has carried out the policies as formulated by the RIPE Community, without exception, even when this has cost the RIPE NCC membership considerable amounts of money. However, because we are bound by fiduciary duty (ie we mustn't do anything that's illegal under Dutch law) we *cannot* agree to do absolutely *anything* that might come out of the policy process. To take a ludicrous example, suppose the community asked us to sign an MOU with a Colombian drug cartel, something which under the PDP they could actually ask us to do, we would decline courteously. This is accountability question. Our task force trying to find approach to such difficult questions. And we hope for your help. "RIPE Chair does what it does" is funny, but not acceptable (for broader audience) answer.
Hope for very constructive dialog after Accountability TF presentation. Alexander P. S. Btw, about ludicrous example. You (NCC) already signed MoU with Russian Telco Ministry not asking anyone. With Russian citizen hat on, i think any MoU with Columbian drug cartel will make lesser damage. Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
Dear Nigel!
Thank you for the answers (in both capacities).
Because we are in "RIPE Accountability" thread i do not think, that such answers are sufficient. Yes, it's very unusual combination of Dutch nonprofit, community, some international relations, shared resources etc. I feel you feel skeptical about Accountability Task Force, but unfortunately we need to write down and state openly some things, which are considered "well known" to Internet pioneers. No, I'm not really sceptical about the TF and you are absolutely right,
Dear Alexander On 19/10/2017 12:10, Alexander Isavnin wrote: those of us who've been around a long time sometimes need to take a step back and examine the way we've "always done things" just to make sure we're still doing it right.
On 2017-10-19 12:17:43 CET, Nigel Titley wrote:
Did i get right, that "RIPE NCC is secretariat for community" is a fairy tale, told to RIPE Meetings newcomers? No, RIPE NCC is a membership association which carries out Network coordination activities on behalf of its membership and generally governed by policies formulated by the RIPE community. "No it's not fairy tale" or "No, it's not being told"? :) https://ripe74.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/24-Newcomers-Intro_... Slide #3
No, it's not a fairy tale. Just slice the "No," off the front of the sentence.
This is accountability question. Our task force trying to find approach to such difficult questions. And we hope for your help. "RIPE Chair does what it does" is funny, but not acceptable (for broader audience) answer.
I hope that particular round of arguments is dead... it was foolishness (mostly on my part).
Hope for very constructive dialog after Accountability TF presentation.
Indeed. Looking forward to it.
Alexander
P. S. Btw, about ludicrous example. You (NCC) already signed MoU with Russian Telco Ministry not asking anyone. With Russian citizen hat on, i think any MoU with Columbian drug cartel will make lesser damage.
That particular MOU was intended to ease the provision of a near real time feed of the RIPE database to the Russian Telco ministry (at their request). And as far as I know, the Russian Telco Ministry isn't an illegal organisation. All the best Nigel
Alexander Isavnin wrote:
Dear Nigel!
May i clarify some things?
Did i get right, that "RIPE NCC is secretariat for community" is a fairy tale, told to RIPE Meetings newcomers?
Legally, the RIPE NCC is answerable only to its members. This is a requirement under Dutch law, and there is nothing surprising or unexpected about it. The RIPE NCC membership is mostly made up of the people who are active in the RIPE Community, and for the most part, there is very little divergence between RIPE community policy and RIPE NCC actions. There are one or two instances I can think of, e.g. charging for ASNs (explicitly overridden by NCC member vote, but let's face it, this isn't an issue that's worth throwing the toys out of the pram over) and rolling out RPKI for PI assignments (RIPE NCC agreed that this was a mistake to proceed without policy and then waited for the RIPE Community policy to request this before proceeding). In practice, there is a 25 year history of implementing RIPE Community policies in good faith. If this changes in the future, I have no doubt that the RIPE NCC membership will want to know why, and if good reasons aren't provided, then the RIPE NCC board will be held to account.
And relations of RIPE NCC to RIPE Community are just 4 letters E I P R in the name?
And Number Resources allocation in this region happens not on behalf of Community, but because of some kind of MoUs signed by Dutch association with American corporation owned by other American corporation?
And all those are official statements of the RIPE NCC Executive Board?
Nigel signed that email in his position as Chairman of the board, which looks pretty official. I don't know what EIPR stands for in this context. Could you explain? If you have some alternative suggestions about how to manage global IP number resource allocations other than through a relationship with IANA, then please speak up and we can have a discussion about your suggestions. Nick
Kind regards, Alexander Isavnin
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. Jim beat me to it (they obviously get up earlier North of The Border).
The NCC Board does of course take account of policies, and also comments on them as part of the evaluation process that the NCC does during policy development. In all cases up until now we have instructed the NCC to follow policy. However, as board members we have certain fiduciary duties which cannot be overridden by policy. Faced with a situation such as Jim describes we have two choices: not implement the policy or resign and hope that someone else agrees to carry the can.
Nigel Chairman RIPE NCC Board
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
On 19 Oct 2017, at 09:24, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:
On 18 Oct 2017, at 23:53, William Sylvester <william.sylvester@addrex.net> 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:kurtis@linx.net
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
participants (9)
-
Alexander Isavnin -
Carsten Schiefner -
Daniel Karrenberg -
Jim Reid -
Kurt Erik Lindqvist -
Nick Hilliard -
Nigel Titley -
Schaa, Tahar -
William Sylvester