On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 05:09:41PM +0100, Jim Reid 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.
I didn't state that you did say that. "allowing NCC to..." is a consequence of the carte blanche. "heavy-handed" was my own characterization. I didn't mean to lay that in your mouth. Sorry, English is not my native language. Apologies of not being clear enough.
The policy did leave the NCC to work out the implementation detail. Which is usually fine.
Agreed.
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.
Agreed as well.
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?]
Well, the usual party line brought forward is "if you have an issue, bring it up on the mailing lists". Now we're doing that, and are being suggested to go private with execs first. Hrm. Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0