[ncc-services-wg] Divergence of RIPE / RIPE NCC policy

Nick,

On 20/03/2013 17:10, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Nigel,
>
> Thanks for replying.  I had hoped - and still hope - for a reply from the
> RIPE chair (not the RIPE NCC chair) because I believe this to be a matter
> of some importance to the RIPE Community.
I am sure that Rob will be replying in due course. I have urged him to 
do so.
>
> I don't want to get into an analysis of why and how 2008-08 failed, but I
> do think it's worth noting that the razor-thin majority vote in the Sep
> 2011 RIPE NCC General Meeting suggests that there was and is substantially
> more community dissent about this than you admit in your reply.  This was
> clear prior to the GM vote, given the scale of the fire storm which erupted
> over 2008-08, mid 2011.
I did actually point out that the majority vote was far less than I 
would have hoped.
>
>
> Research into resource certification was requested by the community via the
> task force, not via the PDP.  The PDP later returned a result: that the
> issue was highly divisive.  It wasn't a helpful result from the point of
> view of moving resource certification forward, and the NCC board chose to
> ignore it.
No real opposition to to resource certification appeared until the end 
of the review stage of the PDP, in fact the PDP was nearly complete. At 
this point I had discussions with one of the opponents of the proposal, 
who admitted that he hadn't been following the PDP and didn't know how 
it worked anyway, but that he was opposed to certification. I pointed 
out to him that it was possible to raise objections, as late in the 
process as it was. I did this because I believe in the open process. The 
result was a firestorm indeed... many people suddenly woke up and 
started reiterating arguments that had been settled months or years 
earlier. I watched the process with horror, not because I had a 
particularly vested interest in the issue of certification (to be frank 
by this stage I would have liked to see it buried in a deep hole in the 
ground) but because I saw the community tearing itself apart.
>
> This wasn't the only course of action sensibly available, imo - but it was
> a course of action that had a significant risk of policy divergence which
> has now occurred.
That is where we have to agree to differ. The board has a primary 
responsibility to the NCC membership, to ensure that the NCC continues 
as a financially viable organisation. As I pointed out in my previous 
email the decision to withdraw the proposal was mine and not the RIPE 
NCCs or the Board's.
>
>
> At least there was an attempt to engage with the community regarding PA
> blocks, even if it produced a frustrating result.
>
> For PI blocks, there has been no attempt to engage with the community.  I
> don't understand how a complete lack of engagement with the RIPE Community
> on this issue is compatible with the bottom up process.
Subsequent discussion on the list (some as recently as last week) 
indicated that now we had certification, extending it to PI seemed a 
minor step.
>
> By pressing ahead with these plans, the RIPE NCC board is sending a clear
> signal that it is prepared to ignore the bottom-up process when expedient
> to do so.  I believe that this is deeply harmful to the RIPE community and
> ultimately to the RIPE NCC.
Just as a matter of interest, could I refer you to the proposal text 
that Axel sent out?

"Following approximately six weeks of discussion (ending on
30 March 2013), the Executive Board will consider feedback from the list
and propose options on moving forward on this matter which will be
properly communicated."

And looking through the email thread I've spotted one objection (yours), 
several expressions of approval and one who said that RPKI was outside 
policy.

Just to reiterate. The NCC and Board *does* listen to the Members (and 
also the community). I think we've demonstrated that time and time 
again. I've tried to show how this one particular case was a very 
difficult one and how I tried to cut the Gordian knot with which we (the 
community, the members and the RIPE NCC) had tied ourselves up and I'm 
sorry you disagree with the way that was done. I can't really say much 
more and I look forward to discussing this with you in Dublin over a 
Guinness.

Nigel