On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 01:55:45PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 03:46:26PM +0300, Fahad AlShirawi wrote:

...

In this whole discussion the board hasn't said a single word. They are listening to try and determine what's the way forward. It surprises me that you would outright attack them like this? As someone who chose to step down from that same exact board, I find the accusation that they aren't trying to do what the membership wants, and where aligned, what the community wants, a little hurtful. My experience is that the board has never ignored.�

This is exactly the problem: the change in 2012 was based solely on what a (small, but loud) part of the *membership* wanted, and it was changing policy-relevant parts of the AGM without involving the AP *community* on this.

Whether it was a small and/or loud part of the membership, it was voted on and received a sufficient majority. The idea that the AP community (which is, in theory, every Tom, Dick & Harry on the Internet) can somehow determine how much members are charged is, frankly, preposterous. The charges are a matter between the membership and the NCC board and any policy that relies on the charging scheme to work is fatally compromised. For fairness' sake, it has happened the other way around as well. In the RPKI disaster the membership has ruled into a matter of policy. That is just as wrong and we should take care to avoid these conflicts in the future (both membership and community). rgds, Sascha Luck