[address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:56:54PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
>RIPE NCC is a Dutch non-profit organisation funded by members
>who pay annual fees. In return for those fees, they get various
>services from the RIPE NCC. Members also elect the board and
>vote on its activity plan and charging scheme at the AGM.
>
>RIPE is an open community of people and organisations who are
>interested in IP-based networking (and related matters), mostly
>in Europe and the Middle East. It does not have a legal
>identity. RIPE works by consensus. It does not vote. It does not
>have any formal membership structure and therefore does not have
>members in the same way that RIPE NCC has members. These things
>are deliberate.

What is missing here is that the RIPE NCC, and its members, are 
bound by the policies that RIPE comes up with. In reality, this
means that < 10 people on a mailing list (some of whom may or may
not be sockpuppets) decide how ~12,000 members have to deal with
the RIPE NCC.

>RIPE develops various policies which RIPE NCC then implement. If
>the RIPE NCC membership feel that RIPE policies are not in the
>best interests of the RIPE NCC (membership), they can  use the
>RIPE NCC's bye-laws to do something about that: replace board
>members, call a GM, reject the activity plan or fee structure,
>pass resolutions, etc, etc.

What would the point be of replacing a Board (which has so far
done a good job) with one that is just as bound by RIPE policy as
the last one? 
The only real options open to a membership unhappy with RIPE
policy are to elect a Board that promises not to be bound by RIPE
policy or to de-fund the NCC. I don't think either option appeals
much.

rgds,
Sascha Luck