On 21 Oct 2010, at 16:24, Daniel Roesen wrote:
You certainly have a point that the policy probably gives too much a card blanche about implementation to NCC, allowing NCC to be overly heavy-handed about certain aspects. Did I interprete you correctly?
Not quite. I didn't say the NCC was being overly heavy-handed. The policy did leave the NCC to work out the implementation detail. Which is usually fine. Nobody else really wants to get involved in that and sometimes implementation depends on internal procedures and operations at the NCC itself. So RIPE as a general rule would leave the NCC to get on with this and trust them to do the Right Thing. This is how it should be. And if things are not going right, there are feedback controls to deal with that. Now if the implementation of this policy is causing problems, then there are existing mechanisms which can be used to address them. A quiet word with the CEO or a Board Member can usually help. [Axel, I don't want the NCC to have a copy of my passport: what's the story here?] If the difficulties are more complex and not easily rectified, then there are more formal mechanisms. Like proposing a new policy or changing an existing one. I think we've thrashed this issue to death by now. So the next stage is finding out what the underlying problem is and what other implementation details can be used to deal with them. Over to you...