Hi,
I understand perfectly the concerns of those colleagues who actually want to promote a better responsible behaviour and ensure the resources allocated to the LIR-s are not abused or there is an effective mechanism to stop abuse. However, as the chair kindly pointed, RIPE policy development follows certain rules: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-710 which in first part of the document clearly states: "Conclusions are reached by consensus." According to Oxford Dictionary, consensus means an opinion that all members of a group agree with.
It's "rough consensus", and it is all about the arguments. 1000 people supporting something doesn't imply rough consensus, and neither does a single person make or break rough consensus. It's the arguments that count, not the number of people expressing them.
I standby my previous comment: the community (of RIPE) has grown encompassing legitimate business but also abusers who have become part of that community.
Abusing the process would be to ignore or distort other people's arguments. Anybody who is debating arguments for or against a proposal is a perfectly valid participant.
Given the previous two points, it is rather clear that we have, in effect, lost the control.
Only if you don't keep track of each other's arguments and respect that not everybody has the same ideas :) Sander