[ncc-services-wg] Divergence of RIPE / RIPE NCC policy

On 14/03/2013 11:41, Andrew de la Haye wrote:
> Some feedback has pointed out the lack of RIPE Policy on this issue. At
> this time, the RIPE NCC is requesting feedback on whether or not resource
> certification should expand beyond a RIPE NCC member service. Discussions
> about potential RIPE Policy, should this happen, can take place via the
> appropriate channels.

I've been trying to figure out a diplomatic way of re-approaching this
issue, but inspiration has not happened, so the direct way will have to do.

RIPE Chair and RIPE NCC Board: there is a problem which you are not dealing
with:  RIPE community policy and RIPE NCC policy have diverged on an issue
which the RIPE Community and a majority of the current RIPE NCC board felt
was important enough to require formal policy proposals with community
support to back them up.  When policy consensus was not achieved in the
RIPE Community in the first of what was intended as an entire series of
proposals, the RIPE NCC board chose to ignore the lack of consensus and put
forward proposals to implement resource certification as an NCC service.

I'm not judging the content of the 2008-08 proposal here; nor am I
disputing the right of the RIPE NCC membership to vote on issues at general
meetings and expect the NCC to implement those decisions; nor is this a
criticism of the excellent work of the RIPE NCC staff whose resource
certification implementation has been exemplary.  My concern is solely that
the bottom-up process which validates the RIPE NCC's legitimacy has been
ignored in an area of policy where bottom-up process actually matters and
where a majority of current RIPE NCC board members have explicitly
acknowledged this by their presence on the original RIPE (not RIPE NCC)
certification task force and their authorship of policy 2008-08.

This is important because the RIPE NCC publicly champions the principle of
bottom-up stakeholder support, and it does so in a very prominent way.  If
it happens that this principle is sidelined - as it has been in this
situation - then the RIPE NCC opens itself up to criticism that the
bottom-up approach is meaningless and can be circumvented when expedient to
do so.

Rather than attempting to resolve this situation, the RIPE NCC is pushing
forward with plans which will ultimately compound the problem and make it
more difficult to resolve in the long term.  Again, I don't dispute the
legal right of the RIPE NCC to do this if their membership votes for it,
but I have serious concerns about the wisdom of doing it because it
de-legitimises the RIPE NCC's claims of bottom-up policy support.

I'd like to ask for feedback from the RIPE Chair about whether he feels
that bottom-up policy is achieved when it is appropriate for the RIPE NCC
to create its own policies in situations where the RIPE Community feels
that the topic is sufficiently divisive that they cannot form consensus.
And if it is appropriate for the RIPE NCC to do this, whether there is any
point in continuing to have a RIPE Community and a policy development process.

Nick