= > Dave Morton <Dave.Morton(a)ecrc.de> writes:
= >
= > Ok - fine. Perhaps you need to have a new RIPE work item called
= > "Reeducating the Commission" :-). It would after all be part of the
= > lobbying/training function discussed already by the contributors.
=
=If you mean a "RIPE NCC" work item I was under the impression that this
=was exactly what the contributors meeting told me to be very careful
=with. There was certainly no consensus that the NCC should be doing
=this and there was consensus that if RIPE wanted to do lobbying and
=industry representation per se it should not be done by the NCC but
=seperately in order not to interfere with the NCC's neutrality.
=Hence I have removed activity N.4 in all its generality from the activity
=plan.
May I try to get us down to reality...
I still perceive this request as a chance, and I appreciate Bob Shaws
contribution! (Although I'd like to add that the issue of educating the
other side about benefits and values should be seen bidirectionally.
But that would get us into EU business and politics...)
The party/ies which might try these days to catch up and to obtain
information cannot be expected to have all the details about RIPE at
large, the RIPE-NCC in particular and it's funding structure. Otherwise
we wouldn't discuss this issue.
What I took home from the CC meeting (in my admittedly bad memory :-), was
that the NCC is not supposed to do *industry representation* and *lobbying*.
Mostly because there might not be implicit consensus about the aims,
methods and there might be interference with other activities towards that
goal. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
=On the other hand the contributors gave the NCC a mandate to speak to
=issues directly concerning our activities.
Exactly. And please bear in mind that this issue affects the whole
community. The impact is not confined to the ISPs and contributing
organisations. I think the NCC should keep that in mind.
Otherwise it might be perceived as doing exactly what it wants to avoid -
lobbying (for the ISPs).
=Domain names are
=somewhat at the fringes there.
This is *unfortunately* true.
This was also the reason why I timidly suggested to think about the mandate
in that area and -if necessary- the funding aspect involved. We certainly
don't have a 1:1 match of ISPs and TLD administrations? I don't see any
reason why we shouldn't think about having the TLD admins in the CC?
BTW, shouldn't we at least try to get the CC involved by cc'ing them and
asking about their position?
=Now I certainly sound less pragmatic than at other times. And it worries
=me my self to some extent. Where is "go for it not matter what" Daniel? ;-)
=But these issues are certainly very political and not important enough
=to rush into action.
Daniel, I think there is a (growing) need to do DNS coordination in Europe.
Much like we evolved the Registry business. Having uniform rules in place
really helps *a lot*. I get goose bumps if I try to figure out how it would
feel to run the IP-address business in the same way as we run DNS these
days.
Our customers and counterparts are certainly working and coordinating
themself across borders. The truly national approach and splendid isolation
might be flawed in the end. If the RIPE NCC feels or becomes blocked in
supporting it, it's probably going to happen elsewhere.
I'd prefer to have it done within the framework of RIPE.
You might want to copy the reasons for that from the CERT-CC discussion.
BTW, I fully support the controlled approach and the attempt to find out
what this is all about and what the rules are. But I think we shouldn't
miss that or similar opportunities - if they really *are* opportunities.
Wilfried.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at
Computer Center - ACOnet :
Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355
Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170
A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
