[address-policy-wg] Board position on 2011-02

On 30 Jun 2011, at 07:43, Turchanyi Geza wrote:

> Your comments are 100% valid, however one of your conclusion might be
> misleading.

Only one? :-)

>> In this case, the Board seems to be saying it doesn't think the  
>> proposed
>> solution is ideal but will go along with what the RIPE community  
>> decides.
>
> What else the Board could do?

Depends. Is your question what can the Board do about this specific  
policy proposal or in a wider (theoretical?) context? Though my  
answer's still the same: it depends.

>> I'm sure that if the Board felt that decision was not in the best  
>> interests
>> of the NCC, they wouldn't keep quiet about the matter.
>
> ???

We had this issue a few years ago over the proposal that required all  
PI holders to have a contract with the NCC. Which was before the  
current PDP had been finalised IIRC. The policy had reached consensus  
in the WG and it was then a simple matter of implementation. Until the  
Board and management realised what that entailed: hiring a small army  
of people to handle all the paperwork for thousands of PI holders. The  
Board decided this was a Bad Idea and asked the WG to reconsider.

There is this ugly little gap in our policy making. The community  
which makes policy (RIPE) is not necessarily the same as the people  
who pay for that policy to be implemented (the NCC membership). The  
Board has to straddle that gap somehow. OTOH, it can't "make policy"  
or get involved in operational matters. On the other the Board has the  
usual responsibilities to look after the interests of the organisation  
(the NCC) and its members.