[cooperation-wg] Another one MoU bites the dust

”What do you mean, why’s it got to be signed?”  ”It’s a MoU. You’ve got to sign MoUs.”

Dear Michele, Hans Petter, Chris!

Thank you for your replies.

Dear Hans Petter, thank you for sending link to NCC Engagement page.
I am aware of this page, and checked it when noticed MoU signing in ICANN60 Programme, i'v checked it on the date of signing, day after (when i wrote my first e-mail) - there was nothing about this MoU on that page. Text appeared on a date of your e-mail, and description and link to announcement - two weeks after - on 13th of November. A bit delayed transparency.
And i have to confess - i am aware of this page because i had to ask a lot of questions to NCC, and generally curious to check what's behind "Beware of the Leopard" signs.
Even such outstanding and communicating member of community like Nurani was not aware of such page on website.

Dear Michele!
Thank you for confirmation about discussion of this MoU by EURALO members.
Exactly this information was inspiration for writing my questions. 
I even know, that MoU between 2 european organizations was signed in Abu-Dhabi, BECAUSE it had to signed in Copenhagen, but EURALO was discussing it's with members. 

Chris!
Thank you for your reply. 
Actually i was expecting you to answer something like "NCC Managing Director allowed to sign everything he wants, look at corporate governance". Thank you for longer reply, even it does not answer most of my questions.
I was checking ripe discussion list, NCC membership list, cooperation WD list, minutes of all WGs trying to find any discussion of this MoU. 
I got nothing. (well, maybe i was not accurate enough, you may send me a link to such discussion).

So,  EURALO discussed such MoU, but some NCC executive decided that NCC members (and community behind) do not deserve such discussion. 
Excellent corporate governance and accountability.

Let me propose forward transparency. 

If something is going to happen in name of Association on behalf of it's members, let's announce it BEFORE it happened. Maybe there will be suggestions or objections.
Somebody could point to reputational risks, reasonability and effectiveness of MoU can be discussed.
Now some activities are presented in a way "So we did it, eat it with porridge" (Russian saying about completely useless or dangerous activity, you can do nothing about already)
Clarifying relationships, communicating, externally relating just for demonstrating activity (and asking for more FTEs afterwards) is not enough.

More suggestions? 

Kind regards,
Alexander Isavnin


Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum