Update - RIPE Database Proxy Service Issues

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, Thank you for your comments on this issue. I would like to point out that the *DRAFT* Activity Plan and Budget is published around September of each year, allowing members ample time to read it before it is discussed at the Autumn General Meeting. The RIPE NCC Executive Board then takes the outcome of the discussions and any new developments into consideration before finalising and approving the definitive Activity Plan and Budget, which is then published before the end of the year. On 13 December 2012, we informed the membership of the definitive Activity Plan and Budget and listed the changes from the draft plan. Please note that the membership does not vote on either the draft or the final Activity Plan and Budget - this is one of the member-elected Executive Board's functions. One of the modifications that took place from the draft to the final Activity Plan was the addition of the RIPE Database Proxy Service as a member-only service. This was a follow-up on an action point that stemmed from the Data Protection Task Force and a need to strengthen our contractual relationship between the current users of the RIPE Database Proxy Service and the RIPE NCC ensuring compliance with Dutch and EU legislation. Partially based on the membership's vote of approval regarding the new Charging Scheme of "one LIR, one fee" and partially based on the fact that the RIPE Database Proxy Service is only actively used by less than a handful of entities (both members and non-members), the Executive Board made the decision, which they felt was in the members' interest, to ask the users of this service to sign both a specific RIPE Database Proxy Service Agreement and the Standard Service Agreement (Membership Agreement) that adheres to both EU and Dutch legislation, which would entail the users of this service paying the annual membership fee. Based on the recent mailing list discussions it seems apparent that this is a contentious issue that requires further membership and community discussion. Therefore, we will keep the RIPE Database Proxy Service running as it was in 2012 (i.e., no fee and no Membership Agreement) until we have completed these discussions. We will prepare a legal analysis of the options at hand for the contractual documentation required to use this service and gauge whether or not the membership feels that we should charge a fee for this service. Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

Hi Axel,
Thank you for your comments on this issue.
I would like to point out that the *DRAFT* Activity Plan and Budget is published around September of each year, allowing members ample time to read it before it is discussed at the Autumn General Meeting. The RIPE NCC Executive Board then takes the outcome of the discussions and any new developments into consideration before finalising and approving the definitive Activity Plan and Budget, which is then published before the end of the year. On 13 December 2012, we informed the membership of the definitive Activity Plan and Budget and listed the changes from the draft plan. Please note that the membership does not vote on either the draft or the final Activity Plan and Budget - this is one of the member-elected Executive Board's functions.
You are right. I thought there had been a vote on the activity plan during the AGM, but it was only a discussion. The Articles of Association (a.k.a. RIPE-534: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-534) state the the Activity Plan is the responsibility of the board, so the members don't need to approve it. My apologies for claiming this change was linked to the voting at the AGM. It wasn't.
One of the modifications that took place from the draft to the final Activity Plan was the addition of the RIPE Database Proxy Service as a member-only service. This was a follow-up on an action point that stemmed from the Data Protection Task Force and a need to strengthen our contractual relationship between the current users of the RIPE Database Proxy Service and the RIPE NCC ensuring compliance with Dutch and EU legislation.
Partially based on the membership's vote of approval regarding the new Charging Scheme of "one LIR, one fee" and partially based on the fact that the RIPE Database Proxy Service is only actively used by less than a handful of entities (both members and non-members), the Executive Board made the decision, which they felt was in the members' interest, to ask the users of this service to sign both a specific RIPE Database Proxy Service Agreement and the Standard Service Agreement (Membership Agreement) that adheres to both EU and Dutch legislation, which would entail the users of this service paying the annual membership fee.
That might not have been the best decision. I fully understand the need for the RIPE Database Proxy Service Agreement, but not for forcing them to become members. The members voted for the "one LIR, one fee" charging scheme, but I don't understand that something that was never even related to being a member now suddenly becomes a member-only service. Why was the choice made to make it a member-only service *and* require a RIPE Database Proxy Service Agreement as well? Why not just the latter? I would like to see when and how this decision was made by the board. If I understand correctly then there must have been a meeting of the Executive Board to make the change to the Activity Plan. I checked the Executive Board meeting minutes (http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/executive-board/minutes) but I can't find anything after August 2nd, which was before the last AGM. The message to the users of the proxy service was sent on the 17th of December, which means that the decision by the board was made before that date. According to the Articles of Association Section 8 "The secretary shall keep minutes of the proceedings at all meetings of the Executive Board. The minutes shall be sent to the Executive Board members and shall be adopted by them In Writing as soon as possible after the meeting. Within two weeks of adoption the minutes of an Executive Board meeting shall be published on the website of the Association.". Two weeks ago was the 21st of December, so the only explanation for the unpublished minutes is that a board member hadn't adopted them yet before Christmas :-) I hope to see those minutes soon, because I think openness about this whole issue is important!
Based on the recent mailing list discussions it seems apparent that this is a contentious issue that requires further membership and community discussion. Therefore, we will keep the RIPE Database Proxy Service running as it was in 2012 (i.e., no fee and no Membership Agreement) until we have completed these discussions.
Thank you.
We will prepare a legal analysis of the options at hand for the contractual documentation required to use this service and gauge whether or not the membership feels that we should charge a fee for this service.
Sounds good. I do want to remark that although the decision to change the Activity Plan has been made according to the Articles of Association, I do wonder if such a decision actually belongs in the Activity Plan... But I'll leave that question until the next GM. Thank you, Sander PS: I'm focussing on the change to the Activity Plan here, and I think this is being solved now in the correct way. I still think the communication around this was appalling. You *don't* send people a in notice the week before Christmas to tell them that they have to sign a RIPE Database Proxy Service Agreement (and in most cases have to become members, which is impossible on such short notice) before the end of the year. You just don't...

Sander, all,
I fully understand the need for the RIPE Database Proxy Service Agreement, but not for forcing them to become members. The members voted for the "one LIR, one fee" charging scheme, but I don't understand that something that was never even related to being a member now suddenly becomes a member-only service. Why was the choice made to make it a member-only service *and* require a RIPE Database Proxy Service Agreement as well? Why not just the latter?
The thought was to have all as simple as possible, "one LIR, one fee, one contract." Clearly, with 20/20 hindsight, that was "te kort door de bocht," a step too far, too quickly.
I checked the Executive Board meeting minutes (http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/executive-board/minutes) but I can't find anything after August 2nd, which was before the last AGM.
You're right. Now they are online; as you pointed out, they should have been already.
I hope to see those minutes soon, because I think openness about this whole issue is important!
Absolutely agree. We want them online (and occasionally succeeded) within two weeks of the meeting. I'm taking action to ensure it happens in every case now.
PS: I'm focussing on the change to the Activity Plan here, and I think this is being solved now in the correct way. I still think the communication around this was appalling. You *don't* send people a in notice the week before Christmas to tell them that they have to sign a RIPE Database Proxy Service Agreement (and in most cases have to become members, which is impossible on such short notice) before the end of the year. You just don't...
Cannot help but agree again. It shouldn't have happened this way. I'm building in extra precautions that it doesn't again. Apologies to those on the receiving end. cheers, Axel

Hi Axel,
I fully understand the need for the RIPE Database Proxy Service Agreement, but not for forcing them to become members. The members voted for the "one LIR, one fee" charging scheme, but I don't understand that something that was never even related to being a member now suddenly becomes a member-only service. Why was the choice made to make it a member-only service *and* require a RIPE Database Proxy Service Agreement as well? Why not just the latter?
The thought was to have all as simple as possible, "one LIR, one fee, one contract." Clearly, with 20/20 hindsight, that was "te kort door de bocht," a step too far, too quickly.
As far as I can tell it was never even a conscious decision :-) See below.
I checked the Executive Board meeting minutes (http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/executive-board/minutes) but I can't find anything after August 2nd, which was before the last AGM.
You're right. Now they are online; as you pointed out, they should have been already.
Thanks! Reading them I notice that the only resolution that mentions the proxy service is: "The Resolution, stating "The Executive Board resolves to not charge a sign-up fee for contract holders of any of the following services: DNSmon, TTM, NRTM, DAUs and Proxy service that become members" was unanimously accepted by the Board." I don't see an explicit decision that the proxy service is a member-only service in those minutes. There is a sentence in the minutes that states "The following services will from 2013 onwards only be available for members (members-only): DNSmon, TTM, NRTM, DAUs and Proxy service." under the heading "Implementation of the Charging Scheme 2013". It seems to day that making those services members-only is a direct consequence of the implementation of the charging scheme, but the 2013 charging scheme document adopted by the members (http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/september-2012/documents/ripe-ncc-ch...) doesn't mention the proxy service at all. It says: "Non-members that are currently charged fees for using specific services such as DNSMON and NRTM, as well as Direct Assignment Users, must also become members". As the proxy service was never a service for which fees were charged it shouldn't have been included in the interpretation. As far as I can tell including the proxy service as a members-only service comes from a misinterpretation of the charging scheme. To summarise: The charging scheme explicitly doesn't say that the proxy service is a member-only service. Including it as a member-only service was a misinterpretation, and the board only decided that proxy service users don't have to pay a signup fee *if* they become members, but didn't decide that they *have* to become members (but probably assumed they had to be, given the misinterpretation). So if I read everything correctly then proxy service users don't have to become members, but if they do then they don't have to pay a signup fee :-) Anyway, everything has already been resolved by not requiring proxy service users to become members and to discuss topic this at the next GM. And I am glad to see that this was caused by a simple human mistake / misinterpretation. You can never completely prevent those from happening :-) Thanks, Sander
participants (3)
-
Axel Pawlik
-
Axel Pawlik
-
Sander Steffann