<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: New structure of the RIPE NCC

  • To: Paul Ridley < >
  • From: "Mike Norris" < >
  • Date: Fri, 25 Apr 97 13:14:05 +0100
  • Cc:

Paul
    thanks indeed for ripe-156.  You and your group have
put a lot of effort and thought into the new structures
for the RIPE NCC.  The case is well made in your first paper,
without involving too much legalese.  I have just a few
comments/questions on/about the paper:

1.  Would one of the aims of the new structure be to 
    be independent of location of the NCC, at least to
    some extent within Europe?  I think it's in the 
    right location, but it may be that at some future
    time it turns out that the NCC should relocate to
    somewhere else.  Would this be possible under the
    new structures?  To put it another way, to what
    extent are the structures NL-specific?

2.  The management team (MT - a homophone of 'empty', maybe
    management group would be better?) is mentioned passim,
    but does not get the explanatory treatment of the other
    bodies.  Maybe a few lines to say what it is, who is on
    it, what it can do.

3.  In 4.1, it says that motions for the GA can come from
    the EB or 5% of the members.  Now 5% looks reasonable,
    but in fact it translates into 20 or 30 members, which
    is typical of attendance at meetings of the Contributors'
    Committee.  Organising 30 people to support a motion
    could prove very difficult (it might take so long that
    by the time you had 5% of the members, the threshold had
    gone up due to the constant growth in members ;-).  The
    questions are: could the threshold be smaller and does
    it have to be relative to the total membership?

4.  Also in 4.1, four weeks notice of motions is required.
    Is this not a tad long?


Regards.

Mike 



  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>