Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE, 75
On 19/10/2017 12:28, ripe-list-request@ripe.net wrote:
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, I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that the NCC ought to be bound to implement absolutely anything that comes out of the RIPE community without limitation. You are rather tilting at a straw man of your own creation here. However, when the taskforce asked NCC staff to look into this, they discovered (to their own surprise) that the NCC has no formal document of any nature that sets out a normative expectation that the RIPE NCC will so much as take community policy into account. That seems a curious omission. You are quite right to point out that the NCC has faithfully followed the community's will, and while you and your fellow Board members remain in charge, I am sure it will continue to do so. But part of the purpose of this exercise is to help create the conditions that make it more likely that your legacy in this respect is honoured by those that succeed you. Nothing we do can guarantee that will happen, but writing down that the NCC's history of implementing community policy is more than a mere coincidence of opinion will both help guide future Boards and give ammunition to Board members against anyone who argues that the NCC should do otherwise. Jim correctly pointed out that the community itself, not being an entity with legal personality, cannot sign an MoU. That removes one option for how such a normative statement might be recorded - but there are several others. The NCC does, after all, have contracts with its members. Personally, I think a better idea that I would like to see considered is to write into the RIPE NCC's governing statutes that one of the purposes of the NCC is to implement RIPE community policy. Of course this phrase would have to be suitable qualified to avoid the pitfall you mention, but I do not think that insurmountable, or even difficult: the NCC does have lawyers, after all. Finally, may I gently suggest that the extremely defensive attitude of some prominent community members to the work of this Taskforce is not a good look. Most of us are reasonably long-standing members of the community ourselves, and fully share both its values and well-proven way of doing things. Our aim is to support this community, not to undermine it. As William has said, nothing we come up with will simply go into effect: we will simply publish some systematic observations and suggestions for the community's consideration. Perhaps you might try to remain a little more open to the possibility that our report might be worth the trouble of reading, maybe even contain one or two useful ideas? Kind Regards, Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
Malcolm On 20/10/2017 11:11, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that the NCC ought to be bound to implement absolutely anything that comes out of the RIPE community without limitation. You are rather tilting at a straw man of your own creation here.
Well, whereas I have every faith in the good sense of the RIPE community, I think we have to accept that the work of the Accountability TF will have a wider audience. And straw men have an alarming habit of coming to life when they come within the purview of lawyers, politicians and the like.
However, when the taskforce asked NCC staff to look into this, they discovered (to their own surprise) that the NCC has no formal document of any nature that sets out a normative expectation that the RIPE NCC will so much as take community policy into account. That seems a curious omission.
I think this lies in the origins of both the RIPE NCC and the PDP. The first existed before the second and the second came about while the community still knew that the RIPE NCC would Do the Right Thing. In these less honourable times, such a document, in whatever form it takes, may well be necessary.
You are quite right to point out that the NCC has faithfully followed the community's will, and while you and your fellow Board members remain in charge, I am sure it will continue to do so. But part of the purpose of this exercise is to help create the conditions that make it more likely that your legacy in this respect is honoured by those that succeed you. Nothing we do can guarantee that will happen, but writing down that the NCC's history of implementing community policy is more than a mere coincidence of opinion will both help guide future Boards and give ammunition to Board members against anyone who argues that the NCC should do otherwise.
Jim correctly pointed out that the community itself, not being an entity with legal personality, cannot sign an MoU. That removes one option for how such a normative statement might be recorded - but there are several others. The NCC does, after all, have contracts with its members.
Personally, I think a better idea that I would like to see considered is to write into the RIPE NCC's governing statutes that one of the purposes of the NCC is to implement RIPE community policy. Of course this phrase would have to be suitable qualified to avoid the pitfall you mention, but I do not think that insurmountable, or even difficult: the NCC does have lawyers, after all. And I'm sure it is something that can and will be looked at. As you so rightly point out, in these less than honourable times, it does seems a curious omission.
Finally, may I gently suggest that the extremely defensive attitude of some prominent community members to the work of this Taskforce is not a good look. Most of us are reasonably long-standing members of the community ourselves, and fully share both its values and well-proven way of doing things. Our aim is to support this community, not to undermine it. I would beware of reading more into emails than was intended by the sender. Certainly in my case, I have the greatest respect for the work
I have no problem with this. We just have to be exceptionally careful to guard against the principle of unintended consequences... something with which the community is becoming more and more familiar in recent years. that the Accountability task force is doing and very grateful to those who have put in the time. You did however ask for comments and you shouldn't be surprised to get them.
As William has said, nothing we come up with will simply go into effect: we will simply publish some systematic observations and suggestions for the community's consideration. Perhaps you might try to remain a little more open to the possibility that our report might be worth the trouble of reading, maybe even contain one or two useful ideas?
See the above... and may I gently suggest that you should also try to be a little less defensive too. And please don't read more into that comment than I intend. Imagine me with a big smile on my face. Best regards Nigel
On 20/10/2017 14:11, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
However, when the taskforce asked NCC staff to look into this, they discovered (to their own surprise) that the NCC has no formal document of any nature that sets out a normative expectation that the RIPE NCC will so much as take community policy into account. That seems a curious omission.
I agree this is not easy to find. But it is there: ripe-161 - "A New Structure for the RIPE NCC / De-Facto Organisational Rules (Revised)" states: "The RNA (RIPE NCC Association, dfk) will be advised by the well established informal group of technical experts known as RIPE (Reseaux IP Europeens)." ripe-350 - "Policy Development Process in RIPE" states: "Since its creation in 1989, RIPE has from time to time agreed on common practices. These common practices may come in different forms and/or under different names: - best common practice (or BCP), - recommendations to the community, - requests to the RIPE NCC, - recommendations to the RIPE NCC, - or just policy." The PDP has evolved; it closely involves the RIPE NCC in the policy process. The one thing you will not find is an *obligation* of the RIPE NCC Association to do exactly what RIPE requests. It has been pointed out that this is not feasible to achieve in any formal sense. I repeat: The architecture of RIPE and the RIPE NCC is constructed such that the *huge* overlap between RIPE participants and RIPE NCC members ensures that the RIPE NCC association acts on requests and recommendations from the RIPE community. The overlap prevents serious conflicts between RIPE and the RIPE NCC. Aside: ripe-161 also deals with defenses against capture of the RIPE NCC Association. It may be worth checking if these defenses are still effective after the various changes to the RIPE NCC Articles in recent years. This appears to be outside the scope of this task force, but I would support if the task force recommended this be looked at.
You are quite right to point out that the NCC has faithfully followed the community's will, and while you and your fellow Board members remain in charge, I am sure it will continue to do so. But part of the purpose of this exercise is to help create the conditions that make it more likely that your legacy in this respect is honoured by those that succeed you. Nothing we do can guarantee that will happen, but writing down that the NCC's history of implementing community policy is more than a mere coincidence of opinion will both help guide future Boards and give ammunition to Board members against anyone who argues that the NCC should do otherwise.
I have no objection at all against writing down the history and documenting the status quo in an informal and informative way. I have indeed offered several times to support the task force in this endeavor by contributing my first-hand knowledge of the evolution of RIPE and the RIPE NCC. Maybe the task force could best look at updating ripe-161 as a first action?
Jim correctly pointed out that the community itself, not being an entity with legal personality, cannot sign an MoU. That removes one option for how such a normative statement might be recorded - but there are several others. The NCC does, after all, have contracts with its members.
Personally, I think a better idea that I would like to see considered is to write into the RIPE NCC's governing statutes that one of the purposes of the NCC is to implement RIPE community policy. Of course this phrase would have to be suitable qualified to avoid the pitfall you mention, but I do not think that insurmountable, or even difficult: the NCC does have lawyers, after all.
I'll repeat myself: "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."
Finally, may I gently suggest that the extremely defensive attitude of some prominent community members to the work of this Taskforce is not a good look. Most of us are reasonably long-standing members of the community ourselves, and fully share both its values and well-proven way of doing things. Our aim is to support this community, not to undermine it.
<good humour> <tounge somewhat-in-cheek> [all substance of this message above this line. no *need* to read on.] Malcolm, In the unlikely event your characterization of "prominent" and "defensive" meant to include me ;-) ... I assure you that I am not defensive, not in the least! I have done my part, specifically for RIPE and the RIPE NCC. Both have been spectacularly successful. In addition to a lot of other useful things we have made and implemented policies that successfully managed the exhaustion of IPv4, a finite resource! This has great impact on businesses and individuals. I have nothing to prove or to be defensive about. However I do care greatly about the future of RIPE and the RIPE NCC. Anything can almost always be improved, but I also firmly believe in keeping things as simple as possible. I am naturally skeptical of adding new parts to an existing system unless there is a clearly established need to do so. "In anything at all, perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry) The task force chair asked some concrete questions to the community and I gave my personal and reasoned answers. I'll let the community decide how that looks. Let me assure you that I have great respect for anyone doing volunteer work in RIPE. Fortunately we have a long tradition in RIPE to arrive at consensus through discussion. Such discussions are not always easy and without disagreements. I always assume everyone has the best intentions until clearly proven otherwise by their actions, however "The road to dysfunctional complexity is paved with good intentions" (Bernard de Clairveaux, paraphrased). I am looking forward to more discussion at the meeting starting tomorrow. Daniel speaking as co-founder of RIPE, initial co-architect of the RIPE NCC association, steady contributor to both and *not* speaking as a RIPE NCC employee
participants (3)
-
Daniel Karrenberg -
Malcolm Hutty -
Nigel Titley