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

On 21/03/2013 11:15, Martin Millnert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [Internet Citizen hat on]
>
>
> (~Specific to RPKI)
> I agree with nick and can openly admit to being part of the small(*) but
> vocal opposition to 2008-08.  I apologize for learning about the topic
> late, but as soon as I did (2010) and grasped the gravity of the
> implications it *will* bring (to me, it's a fact), I did my internet
> citizenry duty ~best I could.
But I'm sure you can understand the frustration and despair of those who 
*had* been arguing the topic for 2 years prior to this, had come to a 
reasonable policy agreement, and then suddenly found all of the old 
arguments suddenly resurrected again. It would have been really useful 
if you (and others) had made your arguments two years previously. (Those 
who were at the Rome meeting will remember me losing my temper (a very 
rare occurrence) on the platform over this).
> This brings us to the general problem here:
> In which way is the RIPE NCC (Inc.) basing its monopoly integer
> registration operation on the internet at large, rather than its paying
> members?
Now this is a question that deserves further debate, and it strikes at 
the heart of the PDP. The authors of the PDP made it as far as possible 
completely standalone from the RIPE NCC (compare to the process in other 
regions). Now this has it's advantages (it answers your question above, 
in that it is entirely disjoint from the members and so can claim to 
represent the internet at large rather than the members). However (and 
at this point I put my NCC Board hat on) it has serious commercial 
implications in that the community has power without responsibility. As 
Jim Reid so cogently remarked a couple of weeks ago, the community could 
propose a policy that instructed Axel to hand out €100 notes on the Dam 
square until the NCC went bust and if we followed the PDP to the letter 
there is nothing the Board could do about it despite the fact that this 
would personally bankrupt them too. All other regions have some sort of 
veto, or endorsement by the board, for all policies. The ARIN region 
even allows the board to make policy, without reference to either the 
community or the Advisory board. And they have exercised this right. So 
I would argue that in general, the RIPE NCC has a better right than any 
other RIR to claim to represent the Internet at large.

And in general the PDP works well (but see below).
>
> If it ever becomes a one-way relationship, the RIPE NCC will lose the
> legitimacy of its operation (business) and I don't think there's anyone
> here who want that pandoras box to open?
Agreed
>
> And thus this is a discussion of principle.  The go-around was ignored.
> Damage to the relationship has occurred.
> How does the RIPE NCC and RIPE Community which to resolve this?
> Do we want to resolve it, and how?
> Or is it time to part ways (and thereby by extension openly inviting
> competition to registry operations...)
> I have some ideas for the specific "single registry point of failure"
> issue which was overarching the debates surrounding 2008-08.
It would be very useful for you to communicate those ideas with the NCC 
team currently working on the problem.
>
> This is perhaps a bit "meta", but it is extremely fundamental to what we
> are doing, higher-order politics aside.
>
It is absolutely fundamental and I think we need to get the answers to a 
number of questions:

1. To what extent can policy be allowed to dictate the day to day 
running of the NCC
2. Does the membership (the owners) of the RIPE NCC have a right (under 
very specific circumstances) to dictate which policy they implement, and 
if the answer is yes, then how is this communicated and how are the 
circumstances decided.
3. Does the PDP, with its "authority but no responsibility" built-ins 
pose a threat to the NCC and hence the  internet in the region. If so 
then how can we fix it.
4. Is our process of deciding policy by consensus still appropriate to 
the PDP? (Note that this is a different question to the issue of bottom 
up governance, to which we are all committed)
5. And what *exactly* do we mean by consensus?

By the way, I'm writing this as a concerned citizen of the internet, to 
which I've given more than twenty years of my life. I genuinely want to 
sort this out (if it needs sorting out). Nothing I say above has 
anything to do with the NCC or the Board and any remarks I make are my 
responsibility alone.

I welcome genuine debate

All the best

Nigel