[address-policy-wg] Revisiting RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01

Hi Hank,

On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 07:46:17PM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> >This was one of the core problems of 2007-01 - the APWG can not decide
> >on the charging scheme.  We can discuss things (which we did, here and
> >in the meetings), but in the end, the charging scheme is decided by the
> >RIPE members AGM - and it's one of the few things where we actually
> >decide by *vote* in RIPE land.
> 
> I reviewed the draft agenda:
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00671.html
> but I have as yet to see any protocol from the address-policy-wg or from 
> the AGM.

2007-01 was only briefly covered on the last RIPE meeting's APWG time - it
had already passed last call.  So all I did was summarize the results, and
tell people that they should attend the AGM because there was a new 
charging scheme to be decided upon.

The minutes for this meeting are not yet done.  Need to check with the 
minute taker where they got stuck (but since the meeting was quite packed,
it is a *lot* work to write these, even with audio recording available).

> I did find this:
> http://www.ripe.net/news/gm-october-2008.html
> Interesting that 52 attendees out of 6000 RIPE members are able to make 
> such a change.

Note that I'm not a lawyer - but as far as I understand, this is how the
articles of the NCC are set up.  The majority of the LIRs (+proxy votes)
that attend the AGM vote for the board members and decide on the charging 
scheme (and possible changes to the articles).

I could now argue "the remaining LIRs could have sent proxy votes" and
then you can answer "we haven't been invited" - we're turning in a circle,
and this is not a good situation and needs to be sorted out.


> >Every RIPE member receives the invitations to the AGM, and the invitation
> >contained the draft of the to-be-installed charging scheme.  It was sent
> >out well in advance, and there is an option to give proxy votes to other
> >LIRs if you can't attend yourself.
> 
> I am looking into why neither il.isoc and il.iucc did not receive the 
> announcement.

I'm sorry if I came across as "arrogant" here.  That wasn't my intention
- I really thought that all LIRs would receive these invitations, and I
think the best way to sort this out might be to ask lir-help at ripe.net to 
look into their records - and depending on the outcome, it might be a
good idea to make sure that AGM invitations are definitely distributed 
to the listed admin-c and tech-c contacts for a LIR.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  128645

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20081204/7071515b/attachment.sig>