[ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE 75

On 19/10/2017 00:53, William Sylvester wrote:
> 1. Do you think the "public benefit" or "the greater good" is a core aspirational factor in decisions made by the RIPE community? Alternatively, are RIPE community members merely working/cooperating for their own benefit? (If the community is only working for its own benefit, why have a last /8 policy that benefits newcomers, for example).

RIPE discussions and actions have always had a strong element of
considering the benefit of the RIPE community as a whole versus the
interests of individuals or smaller groups. We also have a habit of
considering the larger Internet community beyond RIPE. As such we have
set an example that has often been followed by other regions. This has
also enormously strengthened our standing in the world in general.

I see no way to effectively formalise this. There is no way we can make
effective rules to prevent us from becoming selfish as a group if all of
us really want to be.

> 2. There is no explicit obligation anywhere that the RIPE NCC will adhere to policies developed by the RIPE community. Strictly speaking, the RIPE NCC is accountable to its membership only. Does the community feel that the RIPE NCC should make a declaration or perhaps sign an MoU stating that it will follow RIPE community policies?

This has been beaten to death. For the record: Past practice has shown
this to work extremely well. The real reason for this success is that
there is a huge overlap between RIPE and the RIPE NCC membership. The
system is constructed to ensure this. This overlap, and this overlap
alone, ensures that the right things happen. The important reason for
RIPE and the RIPE NCC being different is that RIPE is totally open to
anyone. This ensures that everyone can be heard without any formal
barrier. Once money and contracts come in, a more defined group needs to
take decisions. For this we constructed the RIPE NCC as an association,
the most democratic legal form we could find. Again: it is the *huge*
overlap between the RIPE community and the RIPE NCC membership that
makes this work.

I know that this is at the margin of the charter of the task force, but:
The community needs to watch carefully that the composition of the RIPE
NCC membership is such that this overlap continues to exist. If for
instance the composition of the RIPE NCC membership were to
over-represent a particular group, such as address brokers, the whole
system may become unstable.


> 3. There is no definition of consensus as it is used within the RIPE community. Is this something that is worth documenting?
> We will share some more details on this mailing list after our presentation at RIPE 75.

Personally I do not thing this is "worth documenting". See my other
message about adding formalism. Additionally: The IETF has a
considerable history of work in this area. I suggest we learn from it. I
do not suggest we copy it.

Daniel
speaking as co-founder of RIPE, initial architect of the RIPE NCC
association, steady contributor to both
and *not* speaking as a RIPE NCC employee