On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:56:54PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
RIPE NCC is a Dutch non-profit organisation funded by members who pay annual fees. In return for those fees, they get various services from the RIPE NCC. Members also elect the board and vote on its activity plan and charging scheme at the AGM.
RIPE is an open community of people and organisations who are interested in IP-based networking (and related matters), mostly in Europe and the Middle East. It does not have a legal identity. RIPE works by consensus. It does not vote. It does not have any formal membership structure and therefore does not have members in the same way that RIPE NCC has members. These things are deliberate.
What is missing here is that the RIPE NCC, and its members, are bound by the policies that RIPE comes up with. In reality, this means that < 10 people on a mailing list (some of whom may or may not be sockpuppets) decide how ~12,000 members have to deal with the RIPE NCC.
RIPE develops various policies which RIPE NCC then implement. If the RIPE NCC membership feel that RIPE policies are not in the best interests of the RIPE NCC (membership), they can use the RIPE NCC's bye-laws to do something about that: replace board members, call a GM, reject the activity plan or fee structure, pass resolutions, etc, etc.
What would the point be of replacing a Board (which has so far done a good job) with one that is just as bound by RIPE policy as the last one? The only real options open to a membership unhappy with RIPE policy are to elect a Board that promises not to be bound by RIPE policy or to de-fund the NCC. I don't think either option appeals much. rgds, Sascha Luck