Re: New structure of the RIPE NCC
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 97 13:14:05 +0100
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?