[ripe-list] RIPE 75 Programme Committee Nominations

[Benno Overeinder]

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

The RIPE Programme Committee is responsible for recruiting and
selecting presentations for the RIPE Meeting Plenary sessions. As the
term of two RIPE PC members end, we are looking for new members in
Autumn 2017 who will be elected by the RIPE community at RIPE 75 in
Dubai.

There are currently two seats up for election to the RIPE PC. Please
send nominations, with a biography, statement of interest and
photograph, to p...@ripe.net.

The Charter of the RIPE Programme Committee
(https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-pc-charter) provides more
information about the composition and roles of the RIPE PC.

Note that the schedule of RIPE 75 meeting starts on Sunday, and the days
we are closing nominations and voting has been pushed one day forward
(earlier).

Nominations for the RIPE 75 PC elections can be sent in from today until
Monday October 23rd, 15:30 GST. We will announce the PC elections at
the RIPE meeting opening sessions, but interested parties can nominate
themselves from now.

We will close candidate nominations on Monday at 15:30 GST (GMT+4), and
publish the biographies on the RIPE Meeting web site. Candidates (or
their stand-ins) can present themselves at the start of the Monday
16:00 GST session.

The RIPE PC online voting system will be open from Monday October 23rd,
16:00 GST until Wednesday October 25th, 17:30 GST, for the community
members to cast their votes.  The total voting numbers may be public.

The official announcement of the elected RIPE PC members will be on
Thursday morning, the 26th October, at the start of the 11:00 GST
closing plenary session.

Questions about the RIPE PC can be sent to p...@ripe.net.

Regards,

Brian and Benno
on behalf of the RIPE PC

-- 
Benno J. Overeinder
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE 75

[Schaa, Tahar]

+1

Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Tahar Schaa
Management Consultant
 
Cassini Consulting GmbH
Bennigsen-Platz 1
40474 Düsseldorf

T +49 (0) 151 11 44 38 75

mail tahar.sc...@cassini.de  
visit www.cassini.de

Think green - keep it on the screen!
 


-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: ripe-list [mailto:ripe-list-boun...@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Daniel 
Karrenberg
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Oktober 2017 12:46
An: 
Betreff: Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE 75



On 19/10/2017 12:21, Nigel Titley wrote:
> I'm generally against additional complication, especially where past 
> practice doesn't give cause to worry, but as I say it doesn't really 
> bother me.

For what the opinion of one of the initial architects of this is worth:

Complication and over-specification bothers me greatly. Nothing good has ever 
come of it. A lot of headaches and some real badness have. Any unnecessary 
formalism creates friction losses at the very least.

I encourage everyone proposing additional formalism to first state very clearly 
the concrete *need* for adding it and to provide examples of concrete instances 
where the absence of such formalism has caused problems. Speculative instances 
in the future only count if there is consensus that they are either very likely 
to occur or have catastrophic consequences. In the latter case additional 
scrutiny of whether the added formalism will actually prevent the catastrophe 
is required.
Repeat: state a *need* not a desire or other lesser reason.

Daniel
speaking as co-founder of RIPE, initial architect of the RIPE NCC association, 
steady contributor to both and *not* speaking as a RIPE NCC employee

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE 75

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist]

> On 19 Oct 2017, at 09:24, Jim Reid  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 18 Oct 2017, at 23:53, William Sylvester  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 1. Do you think the "public benefit" or "the greater good" is a core 
>> aspirational factor in decisions made by the RIPE community? Alternatively, 
>> are RIPE community members merely working/cooperating for their own benefit? 
>> (If the community is only working for its own benefit, why have a last /8 
>> policy that benefits newcomers, for example).
> 
> Depends. Sometimes "public benefit" can have unintended consequences. It's 
> clear -- or should be clear -- the public benefit aspirations apply to 
> stewardship of numbering resources. [But that is less of a concern now that 
> address policy is essentially a no-op these days.] The aspiration would also 
> apply to some outreach activities requested by the community: for instance 
> engagement with law enforcement, regulators and governments. Obviously it 
> also applies to running K and maintaining the database too. I'm not so sure 
> the "greater good" argument holds up so well for other NCC activities since 
> IMO they should probably be spun out from the NCC.

I find myself mostly agreeing with Jim here but his examples are more 
instantiated but the NCC and haven’t really been brought to the RIPE community. 
Not that I think they would disagree BTW.

>> 2. There is no explicit obligation anywhere that the RIPE NCC will adhere to 
>> policies developed by the RIPE community. Strictly speaking, the RIPE NCC is 
>> accountable to its membership only. Does the community feel that the RIPE 
>> NCC should make a declaration or perhaps sign an MoU stating that it will 
>> follow RIPE community policies?
> 
> This is a very, very silly idea. Sorry.
> 
> 1) Who would/could sign that MoU with the NCC? The RIPE community has no 
> legal identity (by design) so it cannot enter into a contract or any other 
> quasi-legal agreement.
> 
> 2) If a declaration like this was somehow legally enforcable, that will not 
> help if RIPE develops policies which are opposed by the NCC membership or not 
> in the membership's best interest. If we ever get into a scenario like that, 
> a declaration or MoU is not going to make it easier to resolve the conflict. 
> I think it'll make reconciliation harder. There would be endless 
> meta-arguments about what the MoU means or intended rather than fixing the 
> underlying problem. Add lawyers to taste.
> 
> 3) Suppose RIPE develops a policy that instructs Axel to hand out €100 
> banknotes at Centraal  Station until the NCC's reserves are gone. Should he 
> do that just because this hypothetical declaration/MoU obliges him to do it?

+1 on all that Jim has said above! Many others have already said similar things 
and I agree with this.

> There's probably no need to formalise the NCC-RIPE relationship with anything 
> more than a sentence saying "The NCC (Board) will take account of the 
> policies developed by RIPE whenever it deploys and operates services". ie The 
> NCC listens to RIPE but isn't compelled to obey no matter what.

Agreed. But this could be a board resolution.

>> 3. There is no definition of consensus as it is used within the RIPE 
>> community. Is this something that is worth documenting?
> 
> No. The dictionary definition should be enough. Failing that, there's RFC7282.

Yes, and this has been discussed at length before. I would start by evaluating 
if something new has come to light since then.

Best Regards,

- kurtis -
--
Kurt Erik Lindqvist, CMO
London Internet Exchange Ltd, 5th Floor,
Monument Place, 24 Monument Street. London. EC3R 8AJ
Registered in England number 3137929
Phone: +44 (0) 20 7645 3528
Mobile: +44 (0) 78 8580 7418
https://www.linx.net/ "Working for the Internet" sip:kur...@linx.net



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE 75

[Nigel Titley]

Dear Alexander

On 19/10/2017 12:10, Alexander Isavnin wrote:

Dear Nigel!

Thank you for the answers (in both capacities).

Because we are in "RIPE Accountability" thread i do not think, that such 
answers are sufficient.
Yes, it's very unusual combination of Dutch nonprofit, community, some 
international relations, shared resources etc.
I feel you feel skeptical about Accountability Task Force, but unfortunately we need to 
write down and state openly some things, which are considered "well known" to 
Internet pioneers.
No, I'm not really sceptical about the TF and you are absolutely right, 
those of us who've been around a long time sometimes need to take a step 
back and examine the way we've "always done things" just to make sure 
we're still doing it right.


On 2017-10-19 12:17:43 CET, Nigel Titley wrote:

Did i get right, that "RIPE NCC is secretariat for community" is a fairy tale, 
told to RIPE Meetings newcomers?

No, RIPE NCC is a membership association which carries out Network
coordination activities on behalf of its membership and generally
governed by policies formulated by the RIPE community.

"No it's not fairy tale" or "No, it's not being told"? :)
https://ripe74.ripe.net/wp-content/uploads/presentations/24-Newcomers-Intro_Axel_RIPE74.pdf
Slide #3
No, it's not a fairy tale. Just slice the "No," off the front of the 
sentence.


This is accountability question.
Our task force trying to find approach to such difficult questions.
And we hope for your help.
"RIPE Chair does what it does" is funny, but not acceptable (for broader 
audience) answer.
I hope that particular round of arguments is dead... it was foolishness 
(mostly on my part).


Hope for very constructive dialog after Accountability TF presentation.

Indeed. Looking forward to it.


Alexander

P. S. Btw, about ludicrous example. You (NCC) already signed MoU with Russian 
Telco Ministry not asking anyone. With Russian citizen hat on, i think any MoU 
with Columbian drug cartel will make lesser damage.

That particular MOU was intended to ease the provision of a near real 
time feed of the RIPE database to the Russian Telco ministry (at their 
request). And as far as I know, the Russian Telco Ministry isn't an 
illegal organisation.


All the best

Nigel

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE 75

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 19/10/2017 00:53, William Sylvester wrote:
> 1. Do you think the "public benefit" or "the greater good" is a core 
> aspirational factor in decisions made by the RIPE community? Alternatively, 
> are RIPE community members merely working/cooperating for their own benefit? 
> (If the community is only working for its own benefit, why have a last /8 
> policy that benefits newcomers, for example).

RIPE discussions and actions have always had a strong element of
considering the benefit of the RIPE community as a whole versus the
interests of individuals or smaller groups. We also have a habit of
considering the larger Internet community beyond RIPE. As such we have
set an example that has often been followed by other regions. This has
also enormously strengthened our standing in the world in general.

I see no way to effectively formalise this. There is no way we can make
effective rules to prevent us from becoming selfish as a group if all of
us really want to be.

> 2. There is no explicit obligation anywhere that the RIPE NCC will adhere to 
> policies developed by the RIPE community. Strictly speaking, the RIPE NCC is 
> accountable to its membership only. Does the community feel that the RIPE NCC 
> should make a declaration or perhaps sign an MoU stating that it will follow 
> RIPE community policies?

This has been beaten to death. For the record: Past practice has shown
this to work extremely well. The real reason for this success is that
there is a huge overlap between RIPE and the RIPE NCC membership. The
system is constructed to ensure this. This overlap, and this overlap
alone, ensures that the right things happen. The important reason for
RIPE and the RIPE NCC being different is that RIPE is totally open to
anyone. This ensures that everyone can be heard without any formal
barrier. Once money and contracts come in, a more defined group needs to
take decisions. For this we constructed the RIPE NCC as an association,
the most democratic legal form we could find. Again: it is the *huge*
overlap between the RIPE community and the RIPE NCC membership that
makes this work.

I know that this is at the margin of the charter of the task force, but:
The community needs to watch carefully that the composition of the RIPE
NCC membership is such that this overlap continues to exist. If for
instance the composition of the RIPE NCC membership were to
over-represent a particular group, such as address brokers, the whole
system may become unstable.


> 3. There is no definition of consensus as it is used within the RIPE 
> community. Is this something that is worth documenting?
> We will share some more details on this mailing list after our presentation 
> at RIPE 75.

Personally I do not thing this is "worth documenting". See my other
message about adding formalism. Additionally: The IETF has a
considerable history of work in this area. I suggest we learn from it. I
do not suggest we copy it.

Daniel
speaking as co-founder of RIPE, initial architect of the RIPE NCC
association, steady contributor to both
and *not* speaking as a RIPE NCC employee

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE 75

[Daniel Karrenberg]

On 19/10/2017 12:21, Nigel Titley wrote:
> I'm generally against additional complication, especially where past
> practice doesn't give cause to worry, but as I say it doesn't really
> bother me.

For what the opinion of one of the initial architects of this is worth:

Complication and over-specification bothers me greatly. Nothing good has
ever come of it. A lot of headaches and some real badness have. Any
unnecessary formalism creates friction losses at the very least.

I encourage everyone proposing additional formalism to first state very
clearly the concrete *need* for adding it and to provide examples of
concrete instances where the absence of such formalism has caused
problems. Speculative instances in the future only count if there is
consensus that they are either very likely to occur or have catastrophic
consequences. In the latter case additional scrutiny of whether the
added formalism will actually prevent the catastrophe is required.
Repeat: state a *need* not a desire or other lesser reason.

Daniel
speaking as co-founder of RIPE, initial architect of the RIPE NCC
association, steady contributor to both
and *not* speaking as a RIPE NCC employee

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE 75

[Nigel Titley]

On 19/10/2017 10:27, Carsten Schiefner wrote:

Hi Nigel,

On 19.10.2017 10:36, Nigel Titley wrote:

The NCC Board does of course take account of policies, and also comments
on them as part of the evaluation process that the NCC does during
policy development. In all cases up until now we have instructed the NCC
to follow policy. However, as board members we have certain fiduciary
duties which cannot be overridden by policy. Faced with a situation such
as Jim describes we have two choices: not implement the policy or resign
and hope that someone else agrees to carry the can.

maybe that would be something then that could be put into the board's
rules of internal procedure: that the board sees to have all RIPE
policies be implemented by the NCC to the greatest extend possible, but
limited to the board's fiduciary duties?


If it makes people happier then I'm sure we could do this.

I'm generally against additional complication, especially where past 
practice doesn't give cause to worry, but as I say it doesn't really 
bother me.


Nigel

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE 75

[Nick Hilliard]

Alexander Isavnin wrote:
> Dear Nigel!
> 
> May i clarify some things?
> 
> Did i get right, that "RIPE NCC is secretariat for community" is a
> fairy tale, told to RIPE Meetings newcomers?

Legally, the RIPE NCC is answerable only to its members.  This is a
requirement under Dutch law, and there is nothing surprising or
unexpected about it.

The RIPE NCC membership is mostly made up of the people who are active
in the RIPE Community, and for the most part, there is very little
divergence between RIPE community policy and RIPE NCC actions.  There
are one or two instances I can think of, e.g. charging for ASNs
(explicitly overridden by NCC member vote, but let's face it, this isn't
an issue that's worth throwing the toys out of the pram over) and
rolling out RPKI for PI assignments (RIPE NCC agreed that this was a
mistake to proceed without policy and then waited for the RIPE Community
policy to request this before proceeding).

In practice, there is a 25 year history of implementing RIPE Community
policies in good faith.  If this changes in the future, I have no doubt
that the RIPE NCC membership will want to know why, and if good reasons
aren't provided, then the RIPE NCC board will be held to account.

> And relations of RIPE NCC to RIPE Community are just 4 letters E I P R in the 
> name?
> 
> And Number Resources allocation in this region happens not on behalf
> of Community, but because of some kind of MoUs signed by Dutch
> association with American corporation owned by other American
> corporation?
> 
> And all those are official statements of the RIPE NCC Executive Board?

Nigel signed that email in his position as Chairman of the board, which
looks pretty official.

I don't know what EIPR stands for in this context.  Could you explain?

If you have some alternative suggestions about how to manage global IP
number resource allocations other than through a relationship with IANA,
then please speak up and we can have a discussion about your suggestions.

Nick

> Kind regards,
> Alexander Isavnin
>  
>>> There's probably no need to formalise the NCC-RIPE relationship with 
>>> anything more than a sentence saying "The NCC (Board) will take account of 
>>> the policies developed by RIPE whenever it deploys and operates services". 
>>> ie The NCC listens to RIPE but isn't compelled to obey no matter what.
>> Jim beat me to it (they obviously get up earlier North of The Border).
>>
>> The NCC Board does of course take account of policies, and also comments
>> on them as part of the evaluation process that the NCC does during
>> policy development. In all cases up until now we have instructed the NCC
>> to follow policy. However, as board members we have certain fiduciary
>> duties which cannot be overridden by policy. Faced with a situation such
>> as Jim describes we have two choices: not implement the policy or resign
>> and hope that someone else agrees to carry the can.
>>
>> Nigel
>> Chairman RIPE NCC Board
>>
>>
> 
> 
> Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
> 
> 

Re: [ripe-list] Announcing Diversity Task Force draft charter, plus activities at RIPE 75

[Daniel Karrenberg]

Shane, others,

thank you for producing this charter. I am very happy to see the
essential elements of a task force here: a work plan and a fixed date
for reviewing the continued usefulness of the task force i. This
chaerter is a sound basis for constructive work to improve RIPE.

Could you please consider removing the words "and marginalised" from the
charter. The word marginalised implies that the RIPE community actively
and intentionally marginalises anyone. This is not the case and
therefore these words are not appropriate. Omitting them does not change
the substance of the charter in any way either.

Thank you

Daniel
speaking as co-founder of RIPE,
steady contributor and former vice-chairman

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE 75

[Nigel Titley]

On 19/10/2017 10:56, Alexander Isavnin wrote:

Dear Nigel!

May i clarify some things?

Did i get right, that "RIPE NCC is secretariat for community" is a fairy tale, 
told to RIPE Meetings newcomers?
No, RIPE NCC is a membership association which carries out Network 
coordination activities on behalf of its membership and generally 
governed by policies formulated by the RIPE community.


And relations of RIPE NCC to RIPE Community are just 4 letters E I P R in the 
name?
In practice no, as, except in extremely strange circumstances, the RIPE 
NCC conducts activities according to policies formulated by the  RIPE 
community.


And Number Resources allocation in this region happens not on behalf of 
Community, but because of some kind of MoUs signed by Dutch association with 
American corporation owned by other American corporation?

Completely incorrect.


And all those are official statements of the RIPE NCC Executive Board?
No they are statements made by me, wearing my Chairman hat. I'm happy to 
take off the hat and make the statements as Nigel Titley, Internet 
person at large, if it makes you happier.


What Jim and I were both trying to say, and obviously something got lost 
in translation, is that ever since the PDP's inception the NCC has 
carried out the policies as formulated by the RIPE Community, without 
exception, even when this has cost the RIPE NCC  membership considerable 
amounts of money. However, because we are bound by fiduciary duty (ie we 
mustn't do anything that's illegal under Dutch law) we *cannot* agree to 
do absolutely *anything* that might come out of the policy process. To 
take a ludicrous example, suppose the community asked us to sign an MOU 
with a Colombian drug cartel, something which under the PDP they could 
actually ask us to do, we would decline courteously.


Nigel


Kind regards,
Alexander Isavnin
  

There's probably no need to formalise the NCC-RIPE relationship with anything more than a 
sentence saying "The NCC (Board) will take account of the policies developed by RIPE 
whenever it deploys and operates services". ie The NCC listens to RIPE but isn't 
compelled to obey no matter what.

Jim beat me to it (they obviously get up earlier North of The Border).

The NCC Board does of course take account of policies, and also comments
on them as part of the evaluation process that the NCC does during
policy development. In all cases up until now we have instructed the NCC
to follow policy. However, as board members we have certain fiduciary
duties which cannot be overridden by policy. Faced with a situation such
as Jim describes we have two choices: not implement the policy or resign
and hope that someone else agrees to carry the can.

Nigel
Chairman RIPE NCC Board




Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE 75

[Alexander Isavnin]

Dear Nigel!

May i clarify some things?

Did i get right, that "RIPE NCC is secretariat for community" is a fairy tale, 
told to RIPE Meetings newcomers?

And relations of RIPE NCC to RIPE Community are just 4 letters E I P R in the 
name?

And Number Resources allocation in this region happens not on behalf of 
Community, but because of some kind of MoUs signed by Dutch association with 
American corporation owned by other American corporation?

And all those are official statements of the RIPE NCC Executive Board?

Kind regards,
Alexander Isavnin
 
> > There's probably no need to formalise the NCC-RIPE relationship with 
> > anything more than a sentence saying "The NCC (Board) will take account of 
> > the policies developed by RIPE whenever it deploys and operates services". 
> > ie The NCC listens to RIPE but isn't compelled to obey no matter what.
> 
> Jim beat me to it (they obviously get up earlier North of The Border).
> 
> The NCC Board does of course take account of policies, and also comments
> on them as part of the evaluation process that the NCC does during
> policy development. In all cases up until now we have instructed the NCC
> to follow policy. However, as board members we have certain fiduciary
> duties which cannot be overridden by policy. Faced with a situation such
> as Jim describes we have two choices: not implement the policy or resign
> and hope that someone else agrees to carry the can.
> 
> Nigel
> Chairman RIPE NCC Board
> 
> 


Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE 75

[Nigel Titley]

On 19/10/17 09:24, Jim Reid wrote:
> 
>> On 18 Oct 2017, at 23:53, William Sylvester  
>> wrote:
>  
>> 2. There is no explicit obligation anywhere that the RIPE NCC will adhere to 
>> policies developed by the RIPE community. Strictly speaking, the RIPE NCC is 
>> accountable to its membership only. Does the community feel that the RIPE 
>> NCC should make a declaration or perhaps sign an MoU stating that it will 
>> follow RIPE community policies? 
> 
> This is a very, very silly idea. Sorry.
> 
> 1) Who would/could sign that MoU with the NCC? The RIPE community has no 
> legal identity (by design) so it cannot enter into a contract or any other 
> quasi-legal agreement.
> 
> 2) If a declaration like this was somehow legally enforcable, that will not 
> help if RIPE develops policies which are opposed by the NCC membership or not 
> in the membership's best interest. If we ever get into a scenario like that, 
> a declaration or MoU is not going to make it easier to resolve the conflict. 
> I think it'll make reconciliation harder. There would be endless 
> meta-arguments about what the MoU means or intended rather than fixing the 
> underlying problem. Add lawyers to taste.
> 
> 3) Suppose RIPE develops a policy that instructs Axel to hand out €100 
> banknotes at Centraal  Station until the NCC's reserves are gone. Should he 
> do that just because this hypothetical declaration/MoU obliges him to do it?
> 
> There's probably no need to formalise the NCC-RIPE relationship with anything 
> more than a sentence saying "The NCC (Board) will take account of the 
> policies developed by RIPE whenever it deploys and operates services". ie The 
> NCC listens to RIPE but isn't compelled to obey no matter what.

Jim beat me to it (they obviously get up earlier North of The Border).

The NCC Board does of course take account of policies, and also comments
on them as part of the evaluation process that the NCC does during
policy development. In all cases up until now we have instructed the NCC
to follow policy. However, as board members we have certain fiduciary
duties which cannot be overridden by policy. Faced with a situation such
as Jim describes we have two choices: not implement the policy or resign
and hope that someone else agrees to carry the can.

Nigel
Chairman RIPE NCC Board

Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Accountability Task Force Update at RIPE 75

[Jim Reid]

> On 18 Oct 2017, at 23:53, William Sylvester  
> wrote:
> 
> 1. Do you think the "public benefit" or "the greater good" is a core 
> aspirational factor in decisions made by the RIPE community? Alternatively, 
> are RIPE community members merely working/cooperating for their own benefit? 
> (If the community is only working for its own benefit, why have a last /8 
> policy that benefits newcomers, for example).

Depends. Sometimes "public benefit" can have unintended consequences. It's 
clear -- or should be clear -- the public benefit aspirations apply to 
stewardship of numbering resources. [But that is less of a concern now that 
address policy is essentially a no-op these days.] The aspiration would also 
apply to some outreach activities requested by the community: for instance 
engagement with law enforcement, regulators and governments. Obviously it also 
applies to running K and maintaining the database too. I'm not so sure the 
"greater good" argument holds up so well for other NCC activities since IMO 
they should probably be spun out from the NCC.
 
> 2. There is no explicit obligation anywhere that the RIPE NCC will adhere to 
> policies developed by the RIPE community. Strictly speaking, the RIPE NCC is 
> accountable to its membership only. Does the community feel that the RIPE NCC 
> should make a declaration or perhaps sign an MoU stating that it will follow 
> RIPE community policies? 

This is a very, very silly idea. Sorry.

1) Who would/could sign that MoU with the NCC? The RIPE community has no legal 
identity (by design) so it cannot enter into a contract or any other 
quasi-legal agreement.

2) If a declaration like this was somehow legally enforcable, that will not 
help if RIPE develops policies which are opposed by the NCC membership or not 
in the membership's best interest. If we ever get into a scenario like that, a 
declaration or MoU is not going to make it easier to resolve the conflict. I 
think it'll make reconciliation harder. There would be endless meta-arguments 
about what the MoU means or intended rather than fixing the underlying problem. 
Add lawyers to taste.

3) Suppose RIPE develops a policy that instructs Axel to hand out €100 
banknotes at Centraal  Station until the NCC's reserves are gone. Should he do 
that just because this hypothetical declaration/MoU obliges him to do it?

There's probably no need to formalise the NCC-RIPE relationship with anything 
more than a sentence saying "The NCC (Board) will take account of the policies 
developed by RIPE whenever it deploys and operates services". ie The NCC 
listens to RIPE but isn't compelled to obey no matter what.
 
> 3. There is no definition of consensus as it is used within the RIPE 
> community. Is this something that is worth documenting? 

No. The dictionary definition should be enough. Failing that, there's RFC7282.