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

On 19/10/2017 12:28, ripe-list-request at ripe.net wrote:
> What Jim and I were both trying to say, and obviously something got lost 
> in translation, is that ever since the PDP's inception the NCC has 
> carried out the policies as formulated by the RIPE Community, without 
> exception, even when this has cost the RIPE NCC? membership considerable 
> amounts of money. However, because we are bound by fiduciary duty (ie we 
> mustn't do anything that's illegal under Dutch law) we *cannot* agree to 
> do absolutely *anything* that might come out of the policy process. To 
> take a ludicrous example, suppose the community asked us to sign an MOU 
> with a Colombian drug cartel, something which under the PDP they could 
> actually ask us to do, we would decline courteously.

Nigel,

I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that the NCC ought to be
bound to implement absolutely anything that comes out of the RIPE
community without limitation. You are rather tilting at a straw man of
your own creation here.

However, when the taskforce asked NCC staff to look into this, they
discovered (to their own surprise) that the NCC has no formal document
of any nature that sets out a normative expectation that the RIPE NCC
will so much as take community policy into account. That seems a curious
omission.

You are quite right to point out that the NCC has faithfully followed
the community's will, and while you and your fellow Board members remain
in charge, I am sure it will continue to do so. But part of the purpose
of this exercise is to help create the conditions that make it more
likely that your legacy in this respect is honoured by those that
succeed you. Nothing we do can guarantee that will happen, but writing
down that the NCC's history of implementing community policy is more
than a mere coincidence of opinion will both help guide future Boards
and give ammunition to Board members against anyone who argues that the
NCC should do otherwise.

Jim correctly pointed out that the community itself, not being an entity
with legal personality, cannot sign an MoU. That removes one option for
how such a normative statement might be recorded - but there are several
others. The NCC does, after all, have contracts with its members.

Personally, I think a better idea that I would like to see considered is
to write into the RIPE NCC's governing statutes that one of the purposes
of the NCC is to implement RIPE community policy. Of course this phrase
would have to be suitable qualified to avoid the pitfall you mention,
but I do not think that insurmountable, or even difficult: the NCC does
have lawyers, after all.

Finally, may I gently suggest that the extremely defensive attitude of
some prominent community members to the work of this Taskforce is not a
good look. Most of us are reasonably long-standing members of the
community ourselves, and fully share both its values and well-proven way
of doing things. Our aim is to support this community, not to undermine it.

As William has said, nothing we come up with will simply go into effect:
we will simply publish some systematic observations and suggestions for
the community's consideration. Perhaps you might try to remain a little
more open to the possibility that our report might be worth the trouble
of reading, maybe even contain one or two useful ideas?

Kind Regards,

Malcolm.
-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
           Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA