Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
In a message dated 12/4/02 5:58:30 AM Romance Standard Time, kurtis@kurtis.pp.se writes: Kurtis,
Ok, so for next year we will see a staff reduction or a "re-prioritistion"?
As I wrote earlier we expect the survey to tell us what the membership at large expects the RIPE-NCC to do. If the members indicate that they are only intrested in core activities some restructuring will be required. I personally doubt that this will be the case and I do not think a staff reduction will be needed.
So does this mean that we need to plan for an increase for next year as well?
The current budget/activity plan, as published, shows that we are forecasting zero growth for 2003. As I already explained the business model is changed and we no longer expect new LIRs to cover most of the charges. The fees set for 2003 allow to cover the current expenditures, and generate some surplus to recover part of the contingency fund. If our forecast (zero growth) is accurate, or conservative, the fees should remain at this level (unless, again, the membership survey gives us totally different signals).
3) The board is now concerned (and focusing) with long term scenarios that guarantee the stability of the core services and take in account the industry
I would very much appreciate some details on what is mean with "stability".
Stability for me means that in n years the RIPE-NCC will still be able to efficiently run core services as a non profit organization, to the satisfaction of its members/customers (at least the majority of them ;-))
I am now playing the devils advocate so don't take this literal - the RIPE NCCs number one focus is to provide adequate registration services. Anything else is pure bonus.
The RIPE-NCC was never meant to be "only" about registration services. At any rate I do not believe the RIPE database can be considered "a bonus" anyway. Regards Daniele
The RIPE-NCC was never meant to be "only" about registration services. At any rate I do not believe the RIPE database can be considered "a bonus" anyway.
With the greatest respect, most members *categorically* believe that registration is the "only" thing the RIPE-NCC is about and that any non-registration activities are either undertaken as a direct consequence of a requirement to fulfill registration services or 'other'. 'Other' is my ongoing problem. BTW I have never been asked, as a member of about 4 years, to take part in a member survey. Is this another quiet activity 'sneaked' out as a RIPE document once a year ? Peter
Peter, | With the greatest respect, most members *categorically* believe that | registration is the "only" thing the RIPE-NCC is about and that any | non-registration activities are either undertaken as a direct consequence of | a requirement to fulfill registration services or 'other'. 'Other' is my | ongoing problem. I cannot accept that you say 'most members ..', because from where I'm sitting, there's plenty of voices speaking for training, education, social and formal engineering (eg, meetings). | BTW I have never been asked, as a member of about 4 years, to take part in a | member survey. Is this another quiet activity 'sneaked' out as a RIPE | document once a year ? I hardly think it is sneaked out. You said yourself that you are not able (or was not) to participate in the debates and that you expect the membership at large to act in your best interrest. Now it turns out that you categorically believe that the RIPE NCC should only run registration services. This means that I will not be able to act in your best interrest, because I happen to believe that the RIPE community benefits largely by the 'Other' stuff that the NCC does. I will probably be acting against your best interrest by stimulating 'more than just a registry' behavior. Permit me to fuel your hatred some more: I was recently approached by the RIPE NCC's board to participate in a discussion round with a KPMG research individual and as a matter of fact, we spoke exactly about what 'Other' should be. I voiced my opinion for training, education and spreading of new technologies topdown, such as IPv6 (of which I am an advocate). Suffice to say that not every (and I doubt even 'most') member thinks the same on what the RIPE NCC should be doing. Kind regards, Pim -- __________________ Met vriendelijke groet, /\ ___/ Pim van Pelt /- \ _/ Business Internet Trends BV PBVP1-RIPE /--- \/ __________________
I cannot accept that you say 'most members ..', because from where I'm sitting, there's plenty of voices speaking for training, education, social and formal engineering (eg, meetings).
None of those have fallen into my 'other' category. I have stated that training and education are important IMHO. But then, only training and education directly related to registration services I guess.
I hardly think it is sneaked out. You said yourself that you are not able (or was not) to participate in the debates and that you expect the membership at large to act in your best interrest. Now it turns out that you categorically believe that the RIPE NCC should only run registration services.
You imply the two statements are related. I dispute that. My belief that RIPE/RIPE-NCC should be primarily and reasonably exclusively about registration services - given the members are paying for that - and has been that way since the mid '90s.
Permit me to fuel your hatred some more: I was recently approached by the
Just to clarify. I don't 'hate'. Either socially, commercially or morally. Hate is a sad emotion that is expressed by those unable to have rational thoughts about a subject. Those who put down the resonable concerns of others by shouting loudly may be the ones unable to participate in a rational discussion.
RIPE NCC's board to participate in a discussion round with a KPMG research individual and as a matter of fact, we spoke exactly about what 'Other' should be. I voiced my opinion for training, education and spreading of new technologies topdown, such as IPv6 (of which I am an advocate).
Well pre-chosen survey / research subjects skew the results to fit an expectation - this is how most political parties and self-interest groups do it, so why not the existing RIPE management ? You neither suprise me or change my opinion about the current operation of RIPE/RIPE-NCC.
Suffice to say that not every (and I doubt even 'most') member thinks the same on what the RIPE NCC should be doing.
Yes. Correct in every way. The problem in my view, especially in the light of recent exchanges, is that unless all RIPE members are able to express their views then we will never actually know whether there is a consensus. As Jurt said in another e-mail, it appears that certain people appears shocked that some of us are expressing an unapprove view (I have paraphrased and am not quoting). rgds, -- Peter
Hi, On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 09:22:12AM -0000, Peter Galbavy wrote:
As Jurt said in another e-mail, it appears that certain people appears shocked that some of us are expressing an unapprove view (I have paraphrased and am not quoting).
Indeed this is something that comes as a surprise to new LIRs - the fact that nothing is cast in stone and that it's perfectly ok to voice your opinion and even ask for *changes*. At least it was a surpise to me when I learned that :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54136 (50279) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
As Jurt said in another e-mail, it appears that certain people appears
I meant Kurt. Keybrain failure. Peter
Permit me to fuel your hatred some more: I was recently approached by the RIPE NCC's board to participate in a discussion round with a KPMG research individual and as a matter of fact, we spoke exactly about what 'Other' should be. I voiced my opinion for training, education and spreading of new technologies topdown, such as IPv6 (of which I am an advocate).
I would be very careful to have the NCC work on spreading new technology. Be it streaming toasters, DNS servers or IPv6. If the NCC starts getting viewed as doing lobbying for a specific cause, it will loose a lot of it's value as an independent organization. - kurtis -
At 04 12 2002 08:57 +0000, Peter Galbavy wrote:
BTW I have never been asked, as a member of about 4 years, to take part in a member survey. Is this another quiet activity 'sneaked' out as a RIPE document once a year ?
The Preliminary announcement of the second RIPE NCC survey was sent by me on 12 July 2002. The survey was launched on the RIPE NCC website on 29 August 2002. I also sent an announcement to all members and stakeholders informing them of the survey and encouraging them to participate. On 4 September 2002, prior to RIPE 43 meeting, held in Rhodes 9-13 September 2002, I contacted all registered attendees, informed them of the survey and invited them to participate in an open forum discussion held during the RIPE Meeting. All announcements were sent to: <local-ir@ripe.net>, a list of all members of the RIPE NCC. <ripe-list@ripe.net>, a list of members in the RIPE Community. <ncc-co@ripe.net>, a list of the RIPE NCC contributors list. Knowledge.com has a subscription to local-ir. Axel
BTW I have never been asked, as a member of about 4 years, to take part in a member survey. Is this another quiet activity 'sneaked' out as a RIPE document once a year ?
I assume that as I go down my mailbox this will have been said several times, but here it goes : I have drowned in emails on this survey, also on this list. You have been told. I think that doing a survey is a good thing. Having someone going around Europe was perhaps not as valuable. I don't know. I am waiting with excitement on the report of the outcome.....and I hope that is published BEFORE the next RIPE meeting and not as a presentation during it... - kurtis -
On onsdag, dec 4, 2002, at 09:51 Europe/Stockholm, Bovio@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/4/02 5:58:30 AM Romance Standard Time, kurtis@kurtis.pp.se writes:
Kurtis,
Ok, so for next year we will see a staff reduction or a "re-prioritistion"?
As I wrote earlier we expect the survey to tell us what the membership at large expects the RIPE-NCC to do. If the members indicate that they are only intrested in core activities some restructuring will be required. I personally doubt that this will be the case and I do not think a staff reduction will be needed.
Ok. Notice that this was actually a question on which way you think it will go. I don't understand how you could get "continuing as today" and "same fees and fee structure" to work together.
I am now playing the devils advocate so don't take this literal - the RIPE NCCs number one focus is to provide adequate registration services. Anything else is pure bonus.
The RIPE-NCC was never meant to be "only" about registration services. At any rate I do not believe the RIPE database can be considered "a bonus" anyway.
I agree with you on the "not only" registration services - but at some point we need to ask us what the NCC should focus on. I can see a number of side activities that will prove useful, but still the most useful services are the registration services, and what do we do if these do not function well? I have a PI address space form that I sent it and that apparently had a problem. That was (I think)I two months ago. Still no reply from the NCC. While registering the new LIR I had a problem with the invoicing and tried to get in contact with RIPE NCCs billing group, I was several times on the phone told that none of them had come to the office at times when I would have expected everyone to be at work since long back. I was told there was a week waiting queue on billing issues. I don't want to point fingers, at least this is not my intention - and there might be very valid reasons for everything. But here lays a part of the problem. It's very hard to have a view of the work done by the NCC without this being indirectly seen as criticism of particular persons of the NCC. But I have agreed with Hans-Petter to try and make a presentation for the next LIR-WG of my experiences and what I think, so I will and try to be quite until then, - kurtis -
participants (6)
-
Axel Pawlik -
Bovio＠aol.com -
Gert Doering -
Kurt Erik Lindqvist -
Peter Galbavy -
Pim van Pelt