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

On 10 Jun 2015, at 13:17, Sascha Luck [ml] <apwg at c4inet.net> wrote:

> 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.

That is possible in principle - true.

However if that ever happens, it means the other 11,990 NCC members were either indifferent to the policy proposal or felt it didn't have enough impact to take ANY action while the proposal was passing through the PDP. This is the equivalent of someone complaining about who got to be in government when they didn't bother to go out and vote.

Anyone who didn't like a proposal that these hypothetical <10 sockpuppets managed to get adopted is able to propose an alternative or amend an existing policy. That's how it works. RIPE's policy-making machinery is open to all. Whether people use it or not is up to them.

The PDP includes an impact assessment, so if a proposal was going to cost the NCC too much money or other resources, these issues can be dealt with before the proposal is finally adopted. 
 
>> 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?

You focus on detail. This was just one of the ways I suggested how the NCC membership could take action if/when they thought RIPE policy was not in the best interests of the NCC or its membership. If a board member was ever elected on a "stop proposal foo" ticket, that would probably be strong enough grounds to defer implementation of that proposal until the conflict was resolved.

> 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.

Indeed. But those mechanisms are there. These are over and above the checks and balances offered by the PDP.

I agree we would be in a very bad place if the RIPE NCC membership and RIPE community held mutually exclusive views. However there is a considerable overlap between the two.