On 19/10/2017 12:28, ripe-list-request@ripe.net wrote:
What Jim and I were both trying to say, and obviously something got lost in translation, is that ever since the PDP's inception the NCC has carried out the policies as formulated by the RIPE Community, without exception, even when this has cost the RIPE NCC? membership considerable amounts of money. However, because we are bound by fiduciary duty (ie we mustn't do anything that's illegal under Dutch law) we *cannot* agree to do absolutely *anything* that might come out of the policy process. To take a ludicrous example, suppose the community asked us to sign an MOU with a Colombian drug cartel, something which under the PDP they could actually ask us to do, we would decline courteously.
Nigel, I don't think anyone would seriously suggest that the NCC ought to be bound to implement absolutely anything that comes out of the RIPE community without limitation. You are rather tilting at a straw man of your own creation here. However, when the taskforce asked NCC staff to look into this, they discovered (to their own surprise) that the NCC has no formal document of any nature that sets out a normative expectation that the RIPE NCC will so much as take community policy into account. That seems a curious omission. You are quite right to point out that the NCC has faithfully followed the community's will, and while you and your fellow Board members remain in charge, I am sure it will continue to do so. But part of the purpose of this exercise is to help create the conditions that make it more likely that your legacy in this respect is honoured by those that succeed you. Nothing we do can guarantee that will happen, but writing down that the NCC's history of implementing community policy is more than a mere coincidence of opinion will both help guide future Boards and give ammunition to Board members against anyone who argues that the NCC should do otherwise. Jim correctly pointed out that the community itself, not being an entity with legal personality, cannot sign an MoU. That removes one option for how such a normative statement might be recorded - but there are several others. The NCC does, after all, have contracts with its members. Personally, I think a better idea that I would like to see considered is to write into the RIPE NCC's governing statutes that one of the purposes of the NCC is to implement RIPE community policy. Of course this phrase would have to be suitable qualified to avoid the pitfall you mention, but I do not think that insurmountable, or even difficult: the NCC does have lawyers, after all. Finally, may I gently suggest that the extremely defensive attitude of some prominent community members to the work of this Taskforce is not a good look. Most of us are reasonably long-standing members of the community ourselves, and fully share both its values and well-proven way of doing things. Our aim is to support this community, not to undermine it. As William has said, nothing we come up with will simply go into effect: we will simply publish some systematic observations and suggestions for the community's consideration. Perhaps you might try to remain a little more open to the possibility that our report might be worth the trouble of reading, maybe even contain one or two useful ideas? Kind Regards, Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA