|<<< Chronological >>>||Author Index Subject Index||<<< Threads >>>|
Interesting point - I think in the past we have tried to archive- in the Arin process the board of trustees has an active part in reviewing the policy and adopts or rejects the policy.as it does in apnic, lacnic, ... at least in my culture, policy is the only thing a board really is supposed to do. anything else is micro-management. they're the ones who face the court or whatever.
separation between setting the policies in RIPE and executing the policies
by the RIPE NCC.
I don't know that for people other than the regular participants this separation has been clear. However, I still think it has value as it formally allows for input of people other than just the members themselves (for instance the end-users can have a say on the policy under the current RIPE scheme), therefore allowing for a broader representation of the Internet community.Other opinions ?
|<<< Chronological >>>||Author Subject||<<< Threads >>>|