ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls.
The invitaion to the general assembly meeting is still accessible on the web server: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/gm/gm2002/gm-announce2002.html It lists all the items on the agenda, and those topics (with a verbatim resolution for decision included) for which a vote was required. And it included the link to the Articles of the Association. In particular Article 15 - General Meeting is relevant there, in that it states, i.a., <included here to provide context> "The executive board shall send the verbatim text of the resolutions proposed by the said members immediately to all members of the association." </included ...> "The general meeting may only resolve with respect to resolutions concerning subjects for which the verbatim text of the related resolutions has been sent to the members in accordance with the above." This provision _in particular_ is meant to support proxy voting, by clearly documenting the issues at hand and the resolutions put in front of the members to decide. So it _is_ easy to be represented by proxy. Reality check, please! And, no, I _don't_ like increased fees, but I _do_ understand that they are necessary for the moment. Regards, Wilfried.
Hi, On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 09:33:18PM +0100, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
And, no, I _don't_ like increased fees, but I _do_ understand that they are necessary for the moment.
Seconded (in case anybody misunderstood my previous mails) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 50279 (49875) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
And, no, I _don't_ like increased fees, but I _do_ understand that they are necessary for the moment.
Thank you Wilfried Manfredo -- Manfredo Miserocchi Network & Information Security Administration Chairman & Chief Executive Officer Mobile: +39-338-7347906 E-mail mis@atragon.net MM2719-RIPE / MM2719-ITNIC 0141 F1C9 F134 1951 7F31 F9DE DF46 459D F6D0 EE60 -- Atragon s.r.l. - Via G.B. Mauri, 6 20052 - Monza (MI) - Italy RIPE AS15469 - ATRAGON-MNT - LIR it.atragon -- "Lega insieme due uccelli...essi avranno quattro ali...ma non riusciranno a volare." --
Just a thought... Might it not be easier to hold the RIPE NCC annual general meeting during the RIPE conference week, either January, April, or September. APNIC and ARIN do this, and it saves their membership having to make a second trip for a half day or one day meeting. At least that way more LIRs than those who currently can attend the General Meeting will be able to participate, and maybe give more useful feedback to the discussions. Especially now with the Internet economy somewhat depressed and travel pretty hard to justify for most folks. ? philip -- At 21:33 25/11/2002 +0100, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
The invitaion to the general assembly meeting is still accessible on the web server:
http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/gm/gm2002/gm-announce2002.html
It lists all the items on the agenda, and those topics (with a verbatim resolution for decision included) for which a vote was required.
And it included the link to the Articles of the Association. In particular Article 15 - General Meeting is relevant there, in that it states, i.a.,
<included here to provide context> "The executive board shall send the verbatim text of the resolutions proposed by the said members immediately to all members of the association." </included ...>
"The general meeting may only resolve with respect to resolutions concerning subjects for which the verbatim text of the related resolutions has been sent to the members in accordance with the above."
This provision _in particular_ is meant to support proxy voting, by clearly documenting the issues at hand and the resolutions put in front of the members to decide. So it _is_ easy to be represented by proxy.
Reality check, please!
And, no, I _don't_ like increased fees, but I _do_ understand that they are necessary for the moment.
Regards, Wilfried.
I think the RIPE could also look at splitting some of the meetings up and distributing them more. Regards, Neil.
-----Original Message----- From: lir-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:lir-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Philip Smith Sent: 26 November 2002 11:34 To: lir-wg@ripe.net Cc: Axel Pawlik Subject: Re: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls.
Just a thought... Might it not be easier to hold the RIPE NCC annual general meeting during the RIPE conference week, either January, April, or September. APNIC and ARIN do this, and it saves their membership having to make a second trip for a half day or one day meeting. At least that way more LIRs than those who currently can attend the General Meeting will be able to participate, and maybe give more useful feedback to the discussions. Especially now with the Internet economy somewhat depressed and travel pretty hard to justify for most folks.
?
philip --
At 21:33 25/11/2002 +0100, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
The invitaion to the general assembly meeting is still accessible on the web server:
http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/gm/gm2002/gm-announce2002.html
It lists all the items on the agenda, and those topics (with a verbatim resolution for decision included) for which a vote was required.
And it included the link to the Articles of the Association. In particular Article 15 - General Meeting is relevant there, in that it states, i.a.,
<included here to provide context> "The executive board shall send the verbatim text of the resolutions proposed by the said members immediately to all members of the association." </included ...>
"The general meeting may only resolve with respect to resolutions concerning subjects for which the verbatim text of the related resolutions has been sent to the members in accordance with the above."
This provision _in particular_ is meant to support proxy voting, by clearly documenting the issues at hand and the resolutions put in front of the members to decide. So it _is_ easy to be represented by proxy.
Reality check, please!
And, no, I _don't_ like increased fees, but I _do_ understand that they are necessary for the moment.
Regards, Wilfried.
Just a thought... Might it not be easier to hold the RIPE NCC annual general meeting during the RIPE conference week, either January, April, or September. APNIC and ARIN do this, and it saves their membership having to make a second trip for a half day or one day meeting. At least that way more LIRs than those who currently can attend the General Meeting will be able to participate, and maybe give more useful feedback to the discussions. Especially now with the Internet economy somewhat depressed and travel pretty hard to justify for most folks.
I agree. The cost of going to Amsterdam for one day is not worth it. - kurtis -
I agree. The cost of going to Amsterdam for one day is not worth it.
With my 'consipiracy nut' hat on, I suggest that is intentional. Peter
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 12:25:09PM -0000, Peter Galbavy wrote:
I agree. The cost of going to Amsterdam for one day is not worth it. With my 'consipiracy nut' hat on, I suggest that is intentional.
With all due respect Peter: where do you get off? If "they" really wanted to prevent people attending board meetings, "they" would pull ICANN-like stunts, or any one of a thousand well-known tricks. This is just complaining for the sake of it. Niall -- Enigma Consulting Limited: Security, UNIX and telecommunications consultants. Address: Floor 2, 45 Dawson Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. 802.11 deployment in Dublin: http://www.enigma.ie/wardrive/
With all due respect Peter: where do you get off?
If "they" really wanted to prevent people attending board meetings, "they" would pull ICANN-like stunts, or any one of a thousand well-known tricks. This is just complaining for the sake of it.
I appear to have forgotten the :-) for the humour impaired. Consider it restored. Peter
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 04:33:42PM -0000, Peter Galbavy wrote:
I appear to have forgotten the :-) for the humour impaired. Consider it restored.
From the tone of your earlier posts it is sometimes difficult to tell ;)
NRM -- Enigma Consulting Limited: Security, UNIX and telecommunications consultants. Address: Floor 2, 45 Dawson Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. 802.11 deployment in Dublin: http://www.enigma.ie/wardrive/
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 05:26:59PM +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
I agree. The cost of going to Amsterdam for one day is not worth it.
If something was *really wrong* it would be worth it; and people would go. This is a feature. Daniel
On Mon, 2002-12-02 at 20:39, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 05:26:59PM +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
I agree. The cost of going to Amsterdam for one day is not worth it.
If something was *really wrong* it would be worth it; and people would go. This is a feature.
I'm hoping this was said somewhat tongue-in-cheek. It depends on whether you think the AGM of an association should be attended by only a handful of people, with an idiosyncratic board electoral process that can easily be hijacked by one or two dedicated activists, or a single large registry. I don't think that is healthy. Nigel
If something was *really wrong* it would be worth it; and people would go. This is a feature.
So much for an association founded on some sort of democratic principle. I think my call for the AGM to be included as an adjunct to a RIPE meeting will also call for FULL postal voting for non-attending members. Peter
<snip/>
So much for an association founded on some sort of democratic principle.
I think my call for the AGM to be included as an adjunct to a RIPE meeting will also call for FULL postal voting for non-attending members.
Why not on-line? :) Somewhat more seriously, what would be a suitable alternative to "an association founded on some sort of democratic principle"? Cheers, mh -- Michael Hallgren, http://m.hallgren.free.fr/, mh2198-ripe
Peter
Somewhat more seriously, what would be a suitable alternative to "an association founded on some sort of democratic principle"?
I keep forgetting that many people may not read colloquial English on this list as often as I use it. I was commenting on my 'disgust' (can't think of a better word) that my understanding of the RIPE operating on a democratic, member-based priciple is being undermined by the AGM being held in such a way as to make it difficult for members to participate. Once someone like Daniel make comments like he did, I start getting more - rather than less - concerned over my, originally misplaced, worries over RIPE working like it maybe should. Perhaps the next step is to forget to announce the date and location of the next AGM ? rgds, -- Peter
<snip/>
Somewhat more seriously, what would be a suitable alternative to "an association founded on some sort of democratic principle"?
I keep forgetting that many people may not read colloquial English on this list as often as I use it. I was commenting on my 'disgust' (can't think of a better word) that my understanding of the RIPE operating on a democratic, member-based priciple is being undermined by the AGM being held in such a way as to make it difficult for members to participate.
Once someone like Daniel make comments like he did, I start getting more - rather than less - concerned over my, originally misplaced, worries over RIPE working like it maybe should.
Perhaps the next step is to forget to announce the date and location of the next AGM ?
Sorry, didn't catch the twist -- <blush>. mh
rgds, -- Peter
At 20:39 02/12/2002 +0000, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 05:26:59PM +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
I agree. The cost of going to Amsterdam for one day is not worth it.
If something was *really wrong* it would be worth it; and people would go. This is a feature.
Ah, but in the Internet if something is really broken we route around it. :-( I think we are trying to find a way of fixing the bit we are routing around, if indeed the bit we are currently routing around is broken. Let's be brave and route some "packets" that way. If it doesn't work, well, at least we tried. philip --
[Again personal remarks from an old hand. Do not sue the NCC, and do not sue me either ;-) ] I guess I was too terse. Expanding a bit: The number of participants in RIPE NCC AGMs is small because the vast majority of the members does not see the need to participate. If the RIPE NCC was consistently doing things the members do not want, participation would be higher and this would be corrected. I do not consider any of the other reasons suggested here for the low level of participation in AGMs to be valid. There is no obscurity about the meetings, they are every year around the same time and they are announced well. The agenda, all proposals and associated documents are published well in advance. Only someone who has not taken the time to actually read the material can compare it to stuff from the Euro bureaucrazy. Also the content of the most important document, the Activity Plan, is developed with considerable input and interaction with RIPE. RIPE is open to participation from anyone. I agree with Nigel that this set-up opens opportunities for capture by a small and organised group. However the implementation is such that this cannot happen all at once and it has to happen in public. Again, if it is against most member's interests, they will attend the next meeting and put things right. The reason AGMs are not co-scheduled with RIPE meetings is mainly practical and somewhat historical. The AGMs need the audited accounts published well in advance and that schedule does not fit the traditional RIPE meeting schedule. Also the sets of people attending both meetings used to be fairly discjunct, with notable exceptions. I am all in favour of re-evaluating design and implementation: Resurrect the AGM mailing list? Should AGMs be scheduled along RIPE meetings? Maybe they can as we are working with the register accountants to get audited accounts earlier in the year. Are the people attending also attending RIPE meetings? Should we have electronic voting for board elections? Such improvements should be discussed, always keeping in mind stability and trying hard not to break a running system. However I take serious issue with people asserting that the current design and implementation are fundamentally flawed. They are not! Daniel --------- For full details see "A New Structure for the RIPE NCC: De Facto Organisational Rules". http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-161.html. I cannot refrain from pointing out that this is one of the docs explicitly written to be straight and to the point explaining the design principles and intentions, omitting the legalese that is necessary for implementation. Contrary to what some people have suggested here, this is the way we do things at the RIPE NCC.
Daniel, You could move one of the RIPE meetings to the time that the AGM is, its really not rocket science! I strongly disagree with your assumption on the attendance being low and its concerning that you have a view that "if nobody is complaining then things must be ok". That is a very worrying statement. Regards, Neil.
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:26:23AM -0000, Neil J. McRae wrote:
Daniel, You could move one of the RIPE meetings to the time that the AGM is, its really not rocket science!
Moving the RIPE meeting dates around has been suggested multiple times and has always met considerable resistance from the community.
I strongly disagree with your assumption on the attendance being low and its concerning that you have a view that "if nobody is complaining then things must be ok". That is a very worrying statement.
Then we simply disagree on this point. I have come to my view on this after long experience. See my message to Hans-Petter on this list a couple of months ago for a more detailed reasoning. Daniel
Daniel, I am trying to sue you here BUT,
The number of participants in RIPE NCC AGMs is small because the vast majority of the members does not see the need to participate. If the
I am sorry? Do you think that the african LIRs under RIPE think it's worth the money to come for one day to the AGM? Or perhaps they don't count? do you think the small or corporate think it's worth the money? Or maybe we could just impose a rule that organizations with a turn-over or less that X EUR a year can't vote. Or LIRs not in NL can't vote? I have been told of several occasions when the KPNQwest attendent to the AGM have the majority of the vote. Alone. I am starting to feel sorry we didn't execute the voting power.
RIPE NCC was consistently doing things the members do not want, participation would be higher and this would be corrected.
I am sorry? Are you arguing that the NCC should not do what the members want? Coming from one of the original founders of RIPE NCC and a well respected member, must say you are starting to look pretty odd in my book. Perhaps we need a good bar and some time at the next RIPE meeting, but for now I must say I disagree with everything you have said. It is contra-productive for the NCC as well as for your self. - kurtis -
Hi Kurt, There was an "If the" in front of this. Unfortunate line break in the way the mail got cut. So it reads: If the
RIPE NCC was consistently doing things the members do not want, participation would be higher and this would be corrected.
KEL> I am sorry? Are you arguing that the NCC should not do what the members KEL> want? I think we both know that this is not something DFK would ever say. I'm not a member of the NCC so I'll just follow the conversation with a private interest. Having been involved as an NCC staff member in the past it's always interesting to follow the discussions. All these meetings and still people revert to the bar for discussions:) JC
I agree. The cost of going to Amsterdam for one day is not worth it.
If something was *really wrong* it would be worth it; and people would go. This is a feature.
What is a feature? That not having it with the RIPE meetings limit the number or attendants? Daniel, give me one good reason _not_ to have the AGM at the same time as the RIPE meeting. Lower travel costs? Lower costs for the venue? Less work? - kurtis -
I think that would be an excellent idea. -hph ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Smith" <pfs@cisco.com> To: <lir-wg@ripe.net> Cc: "Axel Pawlik" <axel.pawlik@ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. | Just a thought... Might it not be easier to hold the RIPE NCC annual | general meeting during the RIPE conference week, either January, April, or | September. APNIC and ARIN do this, and it saves their membership having to | make a second trip for a half day or one day meeting. At least that way | more LIRs than those who currently can attend the General Meeting will be | able to participate, and maybe give more useful feedback to the | discussions. Especially now with the Internet economy somewhat depressed | and travel pretty hard to justify for most folks. | | ? | | philip | -- | | At 21:33 25/11/2002 +0100, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: | > The invitaion to the general assembly meeting is still accessible | > on the web server: | > | > http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/gm/gm2002/gm-announce2002.html | > | > It lists all the items on the agenda, and those topics (with a verbatim | > resolution for decision included) for which a vote was required. | > | > And it included the link to the Articles of the Association. In | > particular Article 15 - General Meeting is relevant there, in that | > it states, i.a., | > | > | > <included here to provide context> | > "The executive board shall send the verbatim text of the resolutions | > proposed by the said members immediately to all members of the | > association." | > </included ...> | > | > "The general meeting may only resolve with respect to resolutions | > concerning subjects for which the verbatim text of the related | > resolutions has been sent to the members in accordance with the above." | > | > | > This provision _in particular_ is meant to support proxy voting, by | > clearly documenting the issues at hand and the resolutions put in front | > of the members to decide. So it _is_ easy to be represented by proxy. | > | > Reality check, please! | > | > And, no, I _don't_ like increased fees, | > but I _do_ understand that they are necessary for the moment. | > | > Regards, | > Wilfried. | |
Who can this idea be proposed to? Should it be proposed to the RIPE NCC board, or does someone need to write up a policy proposal for the LIR-WG to consider, or what? philip -- At 22:17 28/11/2002 +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
I think that would be an excellent idea.
-hph
----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Smith" <pfs@cisco.com> To: <lir-wg@ripe.net> Cc: "Axel Pawlik" <axel.pawlik@ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls.
| Just a thought... Might it not be easier to hold the RIPE NCC annual | general meeting during the RIPE conference week, either January, April, or | September. APNIC and ARIN do this, and it saves their membership having to | make a second trip for a half day or one day meeting. At least that way | more LIRs than those who currently can attend the General Meeting will be | able to participate, and maybe give more useful feedback to the | discussions. Especially now with the Internet economy somewhat depressed | and travel pretty hard to justify for most folks. | | ? | | philip | --
At 29 11 2002 10:39 +1000, Philip Smith wrote:
Who can this idea be proposed to? Should it be proposed to the RIPE NCC board, or does someone need to write up a policy proposal for the LIR-WG to consider, or what?
This is a membership issue, and will have to be decided by the board. It is actually on the board's list of items to examine for possible change. Input from the lir-wg list is of course very welcome. regards, Axel
Phil, the AGM is a matter for the RIPE NCC Association. So, it is not a matter for the RIPE LIR-WG to consider. The proper way to proceed is to bring it to the attention of the RIPE NCC Board. Regards, Rob On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Philip Smith wrote:
Who can this idea be proposed to? Should it be proposed to the RIPE NCC board, or does someone need to write up a policy proposal for the LIR-WG to consider, or what?
philip --
At 22:17 28/11/2002 +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
I think that would be an excellent idea.
-hph
----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip Smith" <pfs@cisco.com> To: <lir-wg@ripe.net> Cc: "Axel Pawlik" <axel.pawlik@ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls.
| Just a thought... Might it not be easier to hold the RIPE NCC annual | general meeting during the RIPE conference week, either January, April, or | September. APNIC and ARIN do this, and it saves their membership having to | make a second trip for a half day or one day meeting. At least that way | more LIRs than those who currently can attend the General Meeting will be | able to participate, and maybe give more useful feedback to the | discussions. Especially now with the Internet economy somewhat depressed | and travel pretty hard to justify for most folks. | | ? | | philip | --
the AGM is a matter for the RIPE NCC Association. So, it is not a matter for the RIPE LIR-WG to consider. The proper way to proceed is to bring it to the attention of the RIPE NCC Board.
Will one or more of the NCC board members reading this pleaae consider this request as a formal request for consideration at the earliest opportunity ? Please respond to the list if you will do so. Else, what is the formal (paper, in triplicate) procedure for communicating with our own board members ? (Anyone noticed I hate this FAKE formalism and pointeless bureaucracy ?) Peter
On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 10:13, Peter Galbavy wrote:
the AGM is a matter for the RIPE NCC Association. So, it is not a matter for the RIPE LIR-WG to consider. The proper way to proceed is to bring it to the attention of the RIPE NCC Board.
Will one or more of the NCC board members reading this pleaae consider this request as a formal request for consideration at the earliest opportunity ?
Please respond to the list if you will do so.
Else, what is the formal (paper, in triplicate) procedure for communicating with our own board members ?
(Anyone noticed I hate this FAKE formalism and pointeless bureaucracy ?)
Particularly as I (for one) have been raising this at Board meetings for the past 3 years. Nigel
| Else, what is the formal (paper, in triplicate) procedure for communicating | with our own board members ? http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/board/exec-board.html Kees Neggers János Zsakó Frode Greisen Manfredo Miserocchi Daniele Bovio CHAIRMAN TREASURER ICANN LIASON Member without Portfolio SECRETARY I dont think any formalism is particulary needed, just send them an email, or grab them at the next RIPE meeting. -hph
participants (16)
-
'Daniel Karrenberg' -
Axel Pawlik -
Daniel Karrenberg
-
Gert Doering -
Hans Petter Holen -
John L Crain -
Kurt Erik Lindqvist -
Manfredo Miserocchi -
Michael Hallgren -
Neil J. McRae -
Niall Richard Murphy -
Nigel Titley -
Peter Galbavy -
Philip Smith -
Rob Blokzijl -
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet