Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
Dear Peter, Activities of the RIPE NCC, including its operation and yearly fee structure, are approved by the membership as proposed in the annual RIPE NCC Activity Plan. The RIPE NCC Activity Plan is formed on input from the RIPE community and users of RIPE NCC services. The RIPE NCC's Activity Plan for 2003 was published for comment to the community on 17 September this year. The plan was then presented by the Executive Board of the RIPE NCC for membership approval at the annual General Meeting (GM) of the RIPE NCC. This year's GM was held 29 October 2002. At the meeting, the membership voted unanimously to approve the fee structure, thereby increasing their fees. The RIPE NCC, operating as a not-for-profit organisation, budgets on a cost-recovery basis. This implies that we make an expense proposal and a matching charging scheme. Due to the economic situation, we saw substantially less influx of new members over the course of the last twelve months than forecast, also we have lost member due to closures and mergers. As a result of that, the RIPE NCC will have a sizeable deficit this year. Membership decisions taken over the course of the years have made it possible that we can rely on our reserves to cover the cost of operations this year. To ensure that the prime goal of our membership is met, namely to run RIPE NCC operations stably, we have proposed the current figures for the year 2003. The RIPE NCC appreciates membership feedback and encourages active participation by our members. More information is available from the following RIPE Documents: - "Highlights from the RIPE NCC General Meeting 2002" located at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/gm/gm2002/highlights.html - "RIPE NCC Activities, Expenditures, and Charging Scheme 2003" located at: http://www/ripe/docs/ap2003.html - "RIPE NCC Billing Procedure and Fee Schedule 2003" located at: http://www/ripe/docs/billing2003.html kind regards, Axel Pawlik
Axel,
Due to the economic situation, we saw substantially less influx of new members over the course of the last twelve months than forecast, also we have lost member due to closures and mergers. As a result of that, the RIPE NCC will have a sizeable deficit this year.
If you have less members, and less new members, then surely you don't need more money?! What has the RIPE being doing to shrink the organisation and re-focus on core activities? Neil.
At 25 11 2002 15:42 +0000, Neil J. McRae wrote:
If you have less members, and less new members, then surely you don't need more money?! What has the RIPE being doing to shrink the organisation and re-focus on core activities?
Neil, Closing LIRs, and merging LIRs, is very time consuming, if we want to keep track of the numbering resources involved. Also, a smaller number of members does not mean we get less requests, on the contrary, we are seeing an increase, as the Internet itself has not stopped growing. Over the last year we have been very concerned with getting our service levels back up to where they should be. Now, that we are seeing our measures take first effect, and with further plans like the Secure Web Site becoming reality, we will over the course of the next months be increasing our efficiency considerably. In general, we are doing what our members and the RIPE community wants us to do, and what the Activity Plan 2002 prescribes. kind regards, Axel
On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:11:43PM +0100, Axel Pawlik wrote:
Closing LIRs, and merging LIRs, is very time consuming, if we want to keep track of the numbering resources involved.
But, I hope, this "consumed time" is paid by mergers? Andrius
Hallo Axel, we all have to "synchronize" our activities to match the so called "new economic situation". Perhaps it is possible for you to inform us about steps which are under way on your side to cut down the expenses? Please understand that we as normal entities under competition are not able to raise our fees when our customers go broken. siegfried On 25 Nov 2002 at 17:11, Axel Pawlik wrote:
At 25 11 2002 15:42 +0000, Neil J. McRae wrote:
If you have less members, and less new members, then surely you don't need more money?! What has the RIPE being doing to shrink the organisation and re-focus on core activities?
Neil,
Closing LIRs, and merging LIRs, is very time consuming, if we want to keep track of the numbering resources involved. Also, a smaller number of members does not mean we get less requests, on the contrary, we are seeing an increase, as the Internet itself has not stopped growing.
Over the last year we have been very concerned with getting our service levels back up to where they should be. Now, that we are seeing our measures take first effect, and with further plans like the Secure Web Site becoming reality, we will over the course of the next months be increasing our efficiency considerably.
In general, we are doing what our members and the RIPE community wants us to do, and what the Activity Plan 2002 prescribes.
kind regards,
Axel
Ok, I should not be posting while catching up sequentially on my backlog....I guess I will find the answer in a few mails... - kurtis - On måndag, nov 25, 2002, at 16:42 Europe/Stockholm, Neil J. McRae wrote:
Axel,
Due to the economic situation, we saw substantially less influx of new members over the course of the last twelve months than forecast, also we have lost member due to closures and mergers. As a result of that, the RIPE NCC will have a sizeable deficit this year.
If you have less members, and less new members, then surely you don't need more money?! What has the RIPE being doing to shrink the organisation and re-focus on core activities?
Neil.
- "RIPE NCC Activities, Expenditures, and Charging Scheme 2003" located at:
... should have been http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ap2003.html
- "RIPE NCC Billing Procedure and Fee Schedule 2003" located at:
... should have been http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/billing2003.html apologies, Axel
Given that 32-bit IP addresses lease(rent) for $10 to $15 per month... ...and given that Real Estate brokers generally take one month's rent per year as a fee... ....the market value for a /8 would be approximately $168,000,000 per year... How much does RIPE pay (wholesale) for a /8 ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 082/8 Nov 02 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) === ----- Original Message ----- From: "Axel Pawlik" <axel.pawlik@ripe.net> To: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net> Cc: "Local IR Working Group" <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 9:37 AM Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
Dear Peter,
Activities of the RIPE NCC, including its operation and yearly fee structure, are approved by the membership as proposed in the annual RIPE NCC Activity Plan. The RIPE NCC Activity Plan is formed on input from the RIPE community and users of RIPE NCC services.
The RIPE NCC's Activity Plan for 2003 was published for comment to the community on 17 September this year. The plan was then presented by the Executive Board of the RIPE NCC for membership approval at the annual General Meeting (GM) of the RIPE NCC. This year's GM was held 29 October 2002. At the meeting, the membership voted unanimously to approve the fee structure, thereby increasing their fees.
The RIPE NCC, operating as a not-for-profit organisation, budgets on a cost-recovery basis. This implies that we make an expense proposal and a matching charging scheme.
Due to the economic situation, we saw substantially less influx of new members over the course of the last twelve months than forecast, also we have lost member due to closures and mergers. As a result of that, the RIPE NCC will have a sizeable deficit this year.
Membership decisions taken over the course of the years have made it possible that we can rely on our reserves to cover the cost of operations this year. To ensure that the prime goal of our membership is met, namely to run RIPE NCC operations stably, we have proposed the current figures for the year 2003.
The RIPE NCC appreciates membership feedback and encourages active participation by our members.
More information is available from the following RIPE Documents:
- "Highlights from the RIPE NCC General Meeting 2002" located at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/gm/gm2002/highlights.html
- "RIPE NCC Activities, Expenditures, and Charging Scheme 2003" located at:
http://www/ripe/docs/ap2003.html
- "RIPE NCC Billing Procedure and Fee Schedule 2003" located at:
http://www/ripe/docs/billing2003.html
kind regards,
Axel Pawlik
Activities of the RIPE NCC, including its operation and yearly fee structure, are approved by the membership as proposed in the annual RIPE NCC Activity Plan. The RIPE NCC Activity Plan is formed on input from the RIPE community and users of RIPE NCC services.
you forgot to add "... and can be read in a locked filing cabinet in the basement, stored in a disused lavoratory marked beware of the leopard." Or whatever the full quote is.
Due to the economic situation, we saw substantially less influx of new members over the course of the last twelve months than forecast, also we have lost member due to closures and mergers. As a result of that, the RIPE NCC will have a sizeable deficit this year.
But the costs are increasing ? No, that's not right. Less 'customers', less 'costs'. A drop in membership results in a 50% increase in costs ? I charge that there must be some gross inefficiencies, bad management practicies and even potentially some nest-feathering going on. I *know* I am out of touch, I do not have the time or money to attend ever broom-cupboard meeting held by RIPE. Is there an independent board that is charged with overseeing that money is not wasted in lean years ? As a not-for-profit company, this is the least I would expect. If there is, how on earth did they approve a 50% increase in fees (resulting in a 4% increase in expenditure ?)
The RIPE NCC appreciates membership feedback and encourages active participation by our members.
I thank you for the stock reply, but now how about some genuine discussion ? For example, how do we seperate the entitities that are RIPE and RIPE-NCC ? Peter
From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net> Is there an independent board that is charged with overseeing that money is not wasted in lean years ? === RIPE is clearly "under" ARIN...partly because of IN-ADDR.ARPA (ARIN|Nominum) being under .ARPA (ICANN). http://www.google.com/search?q=nominum+arin http://www.nominum.com/news/press-releases/arin-pr.html http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/3531_752211 http://www.ultradns.com/about/advisors.html http://www.arin.net/about_us/ab_org_bot.html http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.markletaskforce.org/ http://aspeninstitute.org/c&s/ipp.html http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/bot/bot04082002.html ARIN Board of Trustees Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada April 8, 2002 called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. MDT ...adjourn the meeting at 5:09 p.m. MDT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net> To: "Axel Pawlik" <axel.pawlik@ripe.net> Cc: "Local IR Working Group" <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 10:44 AM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
Activities of the RIPE NCC, including its operation and yearly fee structure, are approved by the membership as proposed in the annual RIPE NCC Activity Plan. The RIPE NCC Activity Plan is formed on input from the RIPE community and users of RIPE NCC services.
you forgot to add "... and can be read in a locked filing cabinet in the basement, stored in a disused lavoratory marked beware of the leopard." Or whatever the full quote is.
Due to the economic situation, we saw substantially less influx of new members over the course of the last twelve months than forecast, also we have lost member due to closures and mergers. As a result of that, the RIPE NCC will have a sizeable deficit this year.
But the costs are increasing ? No, that's not right. Less 'customers', less 'costs'. A drop in membership results in a 50% increase in costs ? I charge that there must be some gross inefficiencies, bad management practicies and even potentially some nest-feathering going on.
I *know* I am out of touch, I do not have the time or money to attend ever broom-cupboard meeting held by RIPE. Is there an independent board that is charged with overseeing that money is not wasted in lean years ? As a not-for-profit company, this is the least I would expect. If there is, how on earth did they approve a 50% increase in fees (resulting in a 4% increase in expenditure ?)
The RIPE NCC appreciates membership feedback and encourages active participation by our members.
I thank you for the stock reply, but now how about some genuine discussion ?
For example, how do we seperate the entitities that are RIPE and RIPE-NCC ?
Peter
My apologies to all for giving Jim Flemming an excuse. That was certainly NOT my intent. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@ameritech.net> To: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net>; "Axel Pawlik" <axel.pawlik@ripe.net> Cc: "Local IR Working Group" <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 4:56 PM Subject: Is there an independent board ...Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net> Is there an independent board that is charged with overseeing that money is not wasted in lean years ? ===
RIPE is clearly "under" ARIN...partly because of IN-ADDR.ARPA (ARIN|Nominum) being under .ARPA (ICANN).
http://www.google.com/search?q=nominum+arin http://www.nominum.com/news/press-releases/arin-pr.html http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/3531_752211 http://www.ultradns.com/about/advisors.html http://www.arin.net/about_us/ab_org_bot.html http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.markletaskforce.org/ http://aspeninstitute.org/c&s/ipp.html
http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/bot/bot04082002.html ARIN Board of Trustees Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada April 8, 2002
called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. MDT ...adjourn the meeting at 5:09 p.m. MDT
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net> To: "Axel Pawlik" <axel.pawlik@ripe.net> Cc: "Local IR Working Group" <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 10:44 AM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
Activities of the RIPE NCC, including its operation and yearly fee structure, are approved by the membership as proposed in the annual RIPE NCC Activity Plan. The RIPE NCC Activity Plan is formed on input from the RIPE community and users of RIPE NCC services.
you forgot to add "... and can be read in a locked filing cabinet in the basement, stored in a disused lavoratory marked beware of the leopard." Or whatever the full quote is.
Due to the economic situation, we saw substantially less influx of new members over the course of the last twelve months than forecast, also we have lost member due to closures and mergers. As a result of that, the RIPE NCC will have a sizeable deficit this year.
But the costs are increasing ? No, that's not right. Less 'customers', less 'costs'. A drop in membership results in a 50% increase in costs ? I charge that there must be some gross inefficiencies, bad management practicies and even potentially some nest-feathering going on.
I *know* I am out of touch, I do not have the time or money to attend ever broom-cupboard meeting held by RIPE. Is there an independent board that is charged with overseeing that money is not wasted in lean years ? As a not-for-profit company, this is the least I would expect. If there is, how on earth did they approve a 50% increase in fees (resulting in a 4% increase in expenditure ?)
The RIPE NCC appreciates membership feedback and encourages active participation by our members.
I thank you for the stock reply, but now how about some genuine discussion ?
For example, how do we seperate the entitities that are RIPE and RIPE-NCC ?
Peter
Hi, On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:44:45PM -0000, Peter Galbavy wrote:
Activities of the RIPE NCC, including its operation and yearly fee structure, are approved by the membership as proposed in the annual RIPE NCC Activity Plan. The RIPE NCC Activity Plan is formed on input from the RIPE community and users of RIPE NCC services.
you forgot to add "... and can be read in a locked filing cabinet in the basement, stored in a disused lavoratory marked beware of the leopard." Or whatever the full quote is.
But that's not true in this case. The proposed activity plan was announced *right not this list*, and in good time to add comments and eventually make people vote on the AGM against it. [..]
But the costs are increasing ? No, that's not right. Less 'customers', less 'costs'. A drop in membership results in a 50% increase in costs ? I charge that there must be some gross inefficiencies, bad management practicies and even potentially some nest-feathering going on.
While I can understand your anger - why don't you just go and *read* the RIPE document with all the numbers in it? This year there was a net *loss*, as the "new members" rate was far lower than planned - and much of the budget (like RIPE training courses) is planned to be paid from thoese fees.
I *know* I am out of touch, I do not have the time or money to attend ever broom-cupboard meeting held by RIPE. Is there an independent board that is charged with overseeing that money is not wasted in lean years ?
That would be the RIPE board. [..]
For example, how do we seperate the entitities that are RIPE and RIPE-NCC ?
Ummm. They are separate. RIPE is "the community". The RIPE NCC is the body that does the work for us, and is paid for doing that. They do what *we* put in their activity plan. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 50279 (49875) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
But that's not true in this case. The proposed activity plan was announced *right not this list*, and in good time to add comments and eventually make people vote on the AGM against it.
...
While I can understand your anger - why don't you just go and *read* the RIPE document with all the numbers in it? This year there was a net *loss*, as the "new members" rate was far lower than planned - and much of the budget (like RIPE training courses) is planned to be paid from thoese fees.
Those documents are written in the best EU-bureaucrating-English that money can't sell. Most stuff I see go past as announcements has me asleep before the first paragraph. I have tried to (quickly) read the 2003 budget statement. Makes no sense as there is not enough information there for anyone to make a value judgement. The document says 'X' and not 'X because'. What I cannot understand - sorry, it makes no sense - is why the budget requires new members ? Why is the budget not growth/shrinkage neutral ? New members should pay for their own 'new' requirements through the set-up fee. Again, sorry to make accusations, but whoever created a non-growth neutral budget is NOT doing their job right.
That would be the RIPE board.
OK. I remember something about elections, but will any board members here please speak up ? In your opinion is the 2003 budget correct ? Any doubts ? If you have no doubts, then I strongly suggest that you are not doing the right thing...
Ummm. They are separate. RIPE is "the community". The RIPE NCC is the body that does the work for us, and is paid for doing that. They do what *we* put in their activity plan.
I don't remember asking to be RIPE. I am a paying for the functions of the RIPE-NCC. I don't want any other services, research, funded testing or anything. What I (and many others) want is a registration service that is policy neutral because it is 'fair'. Anything else is just profiteering. Peter
Those documents are written in the best EU-bureaucrating-English that money can't sell. Most stuff I see go past as announcements has me asleep before the first paragraph. I have tried to (quickly) read the 2003 budget statement. Makes no sense as there is not enough information there for anyone to make a value judgement. The document says 'X' and not 'X because'.
Note to self; learn to type better. You got what I meant though ?
What I cannot understand - sorry, it makes no sense - is why the budget requires new members ? Why is the budget not growth/shrinkage neutral ? New members should pay for their own 'new' requirements through the set-up fee. Again, sorry to make accusations, but whoever created a non-growth neutral budget is NOT doing their job right.
To follow this up:
... Registration budget 2003 4,422,000 Euros ... "The number of tickets received by the RIPE NCC is expected to continue to increase from 30,000 in 2002 to 35,000 in 2003." 4,422,000 / 35,000 ~= 126 Euros/ticket. 126 Euros per ticket ? Thats about 2 hours of average/cheap contacting fees. Mad. While I understand as well as anyone that the costs of running an organisation include many many overheads, the bottom line is that the NCC charge 126 Euros per ticket - which as I see it is the primary activity. Wow. I would *love* a piece of that business on a commercial basis. So would quite a lot of companies I expect. When you get that down to approx. 1 hour of average/cheap contracting fees (50 Euros maybe), I will say you are merely expensive for what we get. Peter
On 2002-11-25T17:36:59, Peter Galbavy <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net> said:
4,422,000 / 35,000 ~= 126 Euros/ticket.
126 Euros per ticket ? Thats about 2 hours of average/cheap contacting fees. Mad. While I understand as well as anyone that the costs of running an organisation include many many overheads, the bottom line is that the NCC charge 126 Euros per ticket - which as I see it is the primary activity.
It is _part_ of their activity, not the full scope. If you see that as their primary job, I suggest you write up a reasonable proposal of how to cover your needs and present it at the next RIPE meeting. If the community deems it acceptable, that should work out. Stop ranting _please_. I could understand if you were ranting about something which was forced on you by a narrow vote, but you didn't even try, and it _has_ been announced beforehand, with apt time to raise your voice in time. I suggest you prepare better for 2003... Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Brée -- "I'm extraordinarily patient provided I get my own way in the end." -- Margeret Thatcher
Stop ranting _please_.
I could understand if you were ranting about something which was forced on you by a narrow vote, but you didn't even try, and it _has_ been announced beforehand, with apt time to raise your voice in time. I suggest you prepare better for 2003...
Let me clarify my position. I understand fully that this is my OWN fault for not making the time to read and digest every single document issued or places on the web site. I understand that it is my own fault for not turning up to the AGM and either proposing or voting on appropriate items. I will take more care for next year. I will find the money and the time from a non-break even privately maintained legacy network to employ a full time lobbyist as well. Maybe I sound bitter, but I know it was all there - just I have been used to others paying attention on my behalf. Peter
Hi, On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 10:06:08AM -0000, Peter Galbavy wrote:
I will take more care for next year. I will find the money and the time from a non-break even privately maintained legacy network to employ a full time lobbyist as well.
I don't think this is necessary. From my experience, voicing things on the lir-wg mailing list actually *does* have an effect - but it has to be somewhat popular. There was one voice (Stephen Burley) complaining about "money wasted on useless projects", but he did not get any support from anyone else, while a number of people voiced "we think that these things are indeed useful!", so nothing changed. That *is* a problem with majority systems - someone will be dissatisfied in the end.
Maybe I sound bitter, but I know it was all there - just I have been used to others paying attention on my behalf.
Well - they did. The mandate on the NCC was "make sure that LIRs are properly trained so they can do their job well" (which costs quite some money). Usually this is mainly paid by the "new LIR fees" - which is a reasonable approach - but this year there were much less new LIRs than planned in the budget, so there was a net loss. I think it's reasonable that the NCC plans with higher fees to ensure that they do not run the risk of going bankrupt - which would be a catastrophe - or that they have to significantly reduce expenses like "training" - which is something the LIR community has been explicitely asking for. (Of course the "training" thing is just an example - but I still feel they are doing a reasonable job, and the costs are still in the range that they don't overload a commercial ISP's budget. For a non-commercial network and non-educational network, one has to face the question "is it necessary to be a LIR?") Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 50279 (49875) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Well - they did. The mandate on the NCC was "make sure that LIRs are properly trained so they can do their job well" (which costs quite some money). Usually this is mainly paid by the "new LIR fees" - which is a reasonable approach - but this year there were much less new LIRs than planned in the budget, so there was a net loss.
I wholeheartedly agree with training being a core activity. It reduces the workload in the long term by not requiring quite so much handholding later. I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again.
I think it's reasonable that the NCC plans with higher fees to ensure that they do not run the risk of going bankrupt - which would be a catastrophe - or that they have to significantly reduce expenses like "training" - which is something the LIR community has been explicitely asking for.
OK. I have *not* had time since recieving the invoice yesterday to go and read every budget report and annual report issued in 2002. I will. I cannot comment on this directly, but I will go and look at how the costs break down and formulate more informed opinions shortly. In the meanwhile I have asked (too late for bureaucrats probably, but I must try) to be invoiced quarterly, as this outrageous increase screws my cashflow for the next year. I am *not* in this for business or profit - like I have said I am supporting a leftover, legacy network and not-quite breaking even.
(Of course the "training" thing is just an example - but I still feel they are doing a reasonable job, and the costs are still in the range that they don't overload a commercial ISP's budget. For a non-commercial network and non-educational network, one has to face the question "is it necessary to be a LIR?")
For the last question, and for my circumstances, yes. There is not other way to get independent access to AS number(s) and address space. I have been royally screwed in the past (in different jobs, mind) by ISPs using the PA renumbering 'costs' to force retention of otherwise un-economic business. In terms of resilience - if that is your chosen route - BGP is essential, even if at the moment my specific circumstances dictate that I only have one puclic upstream (my private peering is my own affair). Relying on a 'foreign' LIR to issue and maintain an as-num or other RIPE objects is too risky. So, in my opinion, the RIPE fees have been worth the reduction of risk. Maybe now it is changing. I will be looking into the process of mergers and acquisitions through RIPE to see if there is a goal I can pursue to become an ex-LIR (much to the relief of some I suspect). Peter
From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net> "I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again." ==== When money is mentioned, people seem to **assume** that the people who mention money are against spending it. What really may be happening is that people are against **hiding** the costs, or denying the costs, or claiming someone is in this "for the good of the community", when it is very clear that year after year, they are in it for the money and the good times and the travel and whatever perks they can get from doing almost nothing but saying to a large group of other people, "here, you take 10, you take 20, 30 goes there, and 40 goes over there." It is hard for people to imagine that the process of **selling uniqueness** (or leasing it), has value. As people can see, it now takes about 30 people to do what one person can do. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space That multiplies the costs by a factor of 30. Someone has to pay for that. There is no free lunch. This is a classic Multi-Level-Marketing (MLM) structure. The 30 people are not really required, it is really a few people surrounded by others, working to get into the game, to find their place in the pyramid. Labor unions also have the same pattern or structure. Workers may ask, "What does my $5 per month do ?", answer, "It pays to have someone collect the $5". Some may have a hard time seeing the **value** if it is reduced to a simple circular situation. If enough people and money are added to the structure, then it all becomes much harder to sort out, and reduce to the simple reality that those at the top of the structures have a large vested interest in making sure the structure remains in place and that all of the people in the lower levels of the structure keep it in place. It costs time and money to keep it in place. People at the top of the structure have to make sure that not too much money flows to the top because then it would become too obvious what is going on. Instead, they have to smooth over the lower levels and short-circuit the cash-flow and customers to keep the MLM structure expanding, while maintaining the top with a percentage going to the house. If one wants to "play" with a similar structure, they can learn to operate a .CASINO. http://casinoempire.sierra.com/casino.htm
http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/bot/bot04082002.html ARIN Board of Trustees Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada April 8, 2002
called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. MDT ...adjourn the meeting at 5:09 p.m. MDT
All you have to do is get some /8s and you can lease them...RIPE is only one small Registry... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net> To: "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> Cc: "Lars Marowsky-Bree" <lars@marowsky-bree.de>; "Local IR Working Group" <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 4:49 AM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
Well - they did. The mandate on the NCC was "make sure that LIRs are properly trained so they can do their job well" (which costs quite some money). Usually this is mainly paid by the "new LIR fees" - which is a reasonable approach - but this year there were much less new LIRs than planned in the budget, so there was a net loss.
I wholeheartedly agree with training being a core activity. It reduces the workload in the long term by not requiring quite so much handholding later. I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again.
I think it's reasonable that the NCC plans with higher fees to ensure that they do not run the risk of going bankrupt - which would be a catastrophe - or that they have to significantly reduce expenses like "training" - which is something the LIR community has been explicitely asking for.
OK. I have *not* had time since recieving the invoice yesterday to go and read every budget report and annual report issued in 2002. I will. I cannot comment on this directly, but I will go and look at how the costs break down and formulate more informed opinions shortly. In the meanwhile I have asked (too late for bureaucrats probably, but I must try) to be invoiced quarterly, as this outrageous increase screws my cashflow for the next year. I am *not* in this for business or profit - like I have said I am supporting a leftover, legacy network and not-quite breaking even.
(Of course the "training" thing is just an example - but I still feel they are doing a reasonable job, and the costs are still in the range that they don't overload a commercial ISP's budget. For a non-commercial network and non-educational network, one has to face the question "is it necessary to be a LIR?")
For the last question, and for my circumstances, yes. There is not other way to get independent access to AS number(s) and address space. I have been royally screwed in the past (in different jobs, mind) by ISPs using the PA renumbering 'costs' to force retention of otherwise un-economic business. In terms of resilience - if that is your chosen route - BGP is essential, even if at the moment my specific circumstances dictate that I only have one puclic upstream (my private peering is my own affair). Relying on a 'foreign' LIR to issue and maintain an as-num or other RIPE objects is too risky.
So, in my opinion, the RIPE fees have been worth the reduction of risk. Maybe now it is changing. I will be looking into the process of mergers and acquisitions through RIPE to see if there is a goal I can pursue to become an ex-LIR (much to the relief of some I suspect).
Peter
From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net> "I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again." ====
When money is mentioned, people seem to **assume** that the people who mention money are against spending it. What really may be happening is that people are against **hiding** the costs, or denying the costs, or claiming someone is in this "for the good of the community", when it is very clear that year after year, they are in it for the money and the good times and the travel and whatever perks they can get from doing almost nothing but saying to a large group of other people, "here, you take 10, you take 20, 30 goes there, and 40 goes over there." It is hard for people to imagine that the process of **selling uniqueness** (or leasing it), has value.
As people can see, it now takes about 30 people to do what one person can do. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space That multiplies the costs by a factor of 30. Someone has to pay for that. There is no free lunch.
This is a classic Multi-Level-Marketing (MLM) structure. The 30 people are not really required, it is really a few people surrounded by others, working to get into the game, to find their place in the pyramid. Labor unions also have the same pattern or structure. Workers may ask, "What does my $5 per month do ?", answer, "It pays to have someone collect the $5". Some may have a hard time seeing the **value** if it is reduced to a simple circular situation. If enough people and money are added to the structure, then it all becomes much harder to sort out, and reduce to the simple reality that
have a large vested interest in making sure the structure remains in place and that all of the people in the lower levels of the structure keep it in place. It costs time and money to keep it in place. People at the top of the structure have to make sure that not too much money flows to the top because then it would become too obvious what is going on. Instead, they have to smooth over the lower levels and short-circuit the cash-flow and customers to keep the MLM structure expanding, while maintaining the top with a percentage going to the house. If one wants to "play" with a similar structure, they can learn to operate a .CASINO. http://casinoempire.sierra.com/casino.htm
http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/bot/bot04082002.html ARIN Board of Trustees Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada April 8, 2002
called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. MDT ...adjourn the meeting at 5:09 p.m. MDT
All you have to do is get some /8s and you can lease them...RIPE is only one small Registry... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net> To: "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> Cc: "Lars Marowsky-Bree" <lars@marowsky-bree.de>; "Local IR Working Group" <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 4:49 AM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
Well - they did. The mandate on the NCC was "make sure that LIRs are properly trained so they can do their job well" (which costs quite some money). Usually this is mainly paid by the "new LIR fees" - which is a reasonable approach - but this year there were much less new LIRs than planned in the budget, so there was a net loss.
I wholeheartedly agree with training being a core activity. It reduces
workload in the long term by not requiring quite so much handholding later. I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again.
I think it's reasonable that the NCC plans with higher fees to ensure
Please note that on principle I disagree with pretty much everything Jim Fleming waffles about. Jim, please do not use my opinions to expound your own. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@ameritech.net> To: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net>; "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> Cc: "Lars Marowsky-Bree" <lars@marowsky-bree.de>; "Local IR Working Group" <lir-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 1:31 PM Subject: "I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again." those at the top of the structures the that
they do not run the risk of going bankrupt - which would be a catastrophe - or that they have to significantly reduce expenses like "training" - which is something the LIR community has been explicitely asking for.
OK. I have *not* had time since recieving the invoice yesterday to go and read every budget report and annual report issued in 2002. I will. I cannot comment on this directly, but I will go and look at how the costs break down and formulate more informed opinions shortly. In the meanwhile I have asked (too late for bureaucrats probably, but I must try) to be invoiced quarterly, as this outrageous increase screws my cashflow for the next year. I am *not* in this for business or profit - like I have said I am supporting a leftover, legacy network and not-quite breaking even.
(Of course the "training" thing is just an example - but I still feel they are doing a reasonable job, and the costs are still in the range that they don't overload a commercial ISP's budget. For a non-commercial network and non-educational network, one has to face the question "is it necessary to be a LIR?")
For the last question, and for my circumstances, yes. There is not other way to get independent access to AS number(s) and address space. I have been royally screwed in the past (in different jobs, mind) by ISPs using the PA renumbering 'costs' to force retention of otherwise un-economic business. In terms of resilience - if that is your chosen route - BGP is essential, even if at the moment my specific circumstances dictate that I only have one puclic upstream (my private peering is my own affair). Relying on a 'foreign' LIR to issue and maintain an as-num or other RIPE objects is too risky.
So, in my opinion, the RIPE fees have been worth the reduction of risk. Maybe now it is changing. I will be looking into the process of mergers and acquisitions through RIPE to see if there is a goal I can pursue to become an ex-LIR (much to the relief of some I suspect).
Peter
At 10:49 +0000 26/11/02, Peter Galbavy wrote:
So, in my opinion, the RIPE fees have been worth the reduction of risk. Maybe now it is changing. I will be looking into the process of mergers and acquisitions through RIPE to see if there is a goal I can pursue to become an ex-LIR (much to the relief of some I suspect).
or perhaps there should be a new "smallest" membership level for organisations that do not need to make ongoing allocations and requests for address space and/or are maintaining legacy space. Perhaps a limit of 3 requests at a figure of 500 Euro, which works out at 3 x 126 Euro cost to the NCC plus a margin to contribute towards other projects. f
Fearghas McKay wrote:
At 10:49 +0000 26/11/02, Peter Galbavy wrote:
So, in my opinion, the RIPE fees have been worth the reduction of risk. Maybe now it is changing. I will be looking into the process of mergers and acquisitions through RIPE to see if there is a goal I can pursue to become an ex-LIR (much to the relief of some I suspect).
or perhaps there should be a new "smallest" membership level for organisations that do not need to make ongoing allocations and requests for address space and/or are maintaining legacy space.
Perhaps a limit of 3 requests at a figure of 500 Euro, which works out at 3 x 126 Euro cost to the NCC plus a margin to contribute towards other projects
This would solve the ongoing discussion and bring RIPE more happy customers :) Maarten Linthorst -- Maarten E. Linthorst mailto:mel@csi.ch GoldNet / CSI Communications Systems Inc. AG Grundstrasse 66 tel +41 1 9266142 fax +41 1 9266145 CH-8712 Staefa Switzerland http://www.csi.ch http://www.goldnet.ch http://www.ftserver.ch
I don't think this is necessary. From my experience, voicing things on the lir-wg mailing list actually *does* have an effect - but it has to be somewhat popular. There was one voice (Stephen Burley) complaining about "money wasted on useless projects", but he did not get any support from anyone else, while a number of people voiced "we think that these things are indeed useful!", so nothing changed.
Speaking of.... I personally do feel that quite a lot of the "special projects" that RIPE does is essential. However, I think that providing timely and adequate registration services is more urgent. RIPE NCC is increasing the fees, loosing customers and still not IMHO doing a good job. I would be more than happy to pay 50% more if that would give me better registration services. I am not convinced that is the case. For at least a year we have been hearing that this would improve. We are given statistics this is the case. As a new LIR I must say that if this is the improvement, I am glad I wasn't a registry before....
Well - they did. The mandate on the NCC was "make sure that LIRs are properly trained so they can do their job well" (which costs quite some money). Usually this is mainly paid by the "new LIR fees" - which is a reasonable approach - but this year there were much less new LIRs than planned in the budget, so there was a net loss
The burst of the dot.com bubble is no news. It was there a year ago. Businesses adopted and cut back to cope with it. Some did better, some did worse. RIPE NCC seems to belong in the later category. If this would have been a Ltd, the share holders would be asking if the management and accountants was a sleep.
I think it's reasonable that the NCC plans with higher fees to ensure that they do not run the risk of going bankrupt - which would be a catastrophe -
Agreed.
or that they have to significantly reduce expenses like "training" - which is something the LIR community has been explicitely asking for.
Agreed - but! We and the NCC need to realize that money is not free flowing. Raising the fees might be ok to solve a urgent problem of solvency but they also need to point at what they have done to reduce cost and regain financial control. Just like any other company have to do to their shareholders. If we loose even more new LIRs next year, do we just continue to raise? Where is the pain level?
(Of course the "training" thing is just an example - but I still feel they are doing a reasonable job, and the costs are still in the range that they don't overload a commercial ISP's budget. For a non-commercial network and non-educational network, one has to face the question "is it necessary to be a LIR?")
It''s not that simple. The RIRs have defacto monopolies. There is nowhere else to go. And I am not arguing it should be. Best regards, - kurtis -
Peter Galbavy wrote:
Those documents are written in the best EU-bureaucrating-English that money can't sell. Most stuff I see go past as announcements has me asleep before the first paragraph. I have tried to (quickly) read the 2003 budget statement. Makes no sense as there is not enough information there for anyone to make a value judgement. The document says 'X' and not 'X because'.
What I cannot understand - sorry, it makes no sense - is why the budget requires new members ? Why is the budget not growth/shrinkage neutral ? New members should pay for their own 'new' requirements through the set-up fee. Again, sorry to make accusations, but whoever created a non-growth neutral budget is NOT doing their job right.
Peter, why don't you go to your CFO or accountant and let them interpret the budget for you? You don't seem to have any clue how budgeting and business plans work. I think everyone on this list would be very grateful if you'd stop ranting until you understand economics 101. Cheers -- Andre
That would be the RIPE board.
OK. I remember something about elections, but will any board members here please speak up ? In your opinion is the 2003 budget correct ? Any doubts ? If you have no doubts, then I strongly suggest that you are not doing the right thing...
Ummm. They are separate. RIPE is "the community". The RIPE NCC is the body that does the work for us, and is paid for doing that. They do what *we* put in their activity plan.
I don't remember asking to be RIPE. I am a paying for the functions of the RIPE-NCC. I don't want any other services, research, funded testing or anything. What I (and many others) want is a registration service that is policy neutral because it is 'fair'. Anything else is just profiteering.
Peter
why don't you go to your CFO or accountant and let them interpret the budget for you? You don't seem to have any clue how budgeting and business plans work. I think everyone on this list would be very grateful if you'd stop ranting until you understand economics 101.
I do have a clue thanks. I would prefer answers to the questions rather than smug and supercilious comments from you. Peter
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net>
why don't you go to your CFO or accountant and let them interpret the budget for you? You don't seem to have any clue how budgeting and business plans work. I think everyone on this list would be very grateful if you'd stop ranting until you understand economics 101.
I do have a clue thanks. I would prefer answers to the questions....
Remember....one line can build a stadium... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 038/8 Performance Systems International Sep 94 http://www.sportsstorm.com/Stadiums/PSINetStadium/
Peter Galbavy wrote:
why don't you go to your CFO or accountant and let them interpret the budget for you? You don't seem to have any clue how budgeting and business plans work. I think everyone on this list would be very grateful if you'd stop ranting until you understand economics 101.
I do have a clue thanks. I would prefer answers to the questions rather than smug and supercilious comments from you.
Hey, YOU fell asleep after reading the first paragraph! All the answers to your questions are on the RIPE website. You'll just have to wake up and use your browser. You are just insulting the people from RIPE NCC and the Board Members with your stupid bullying and ranting about the budget. Instead of insulting these people you could actually make a point by actually reading the budget before it goes to the general assembly for voting. If it doesn't please you, then raise your voice in a polite manner and request changes. If you don't like it even then, you have to cast your vote against it. And if you don't want to go to the coffee club, then send a proxy for your vote. You know, RIPE is a democracy. Don't blame others if you choose not to participate in it. I'm out -- Andre
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andre Oppermann" <oppermann@pipeline.ch>
You know, RIPE is a democracy. Don't blame others if you choose not to participate in it.
Does that mean that all of the parties allocated space under a /8 can "vote" and move as a group ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 062/8 Apr 97 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 080/8 Apr 01 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 081/8 Apr 01 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 082/8 Nov 02 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 193/8 May 93 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 194/8 May 93 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 195/8 May 93 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 212/8 Oct 97 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 213/8 Mar 99 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 217/8 Jun 00 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) ============================================= How does RIPE pay each year for each /8 ?
Jim, Do us a favour and take your pointless spam somewhere else. Regards, Neil.
-----Original Message----- From: lir-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:lir-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jim Fleming Sent: 25 November 2002 18:14 To: Andre Oppermann; Peter Galbavy Cc: Gert Doering; Axel Pawlik; Local IR Working Group Subject: [lir-wg] "RIPE is a democracy" ?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andre Oppermann" <oppermann@pipeline.ch>
You know, RIPE is a democracy. Don't blame others if you
choose not to
participate in it.
Does that mean that all of the parties allocated space under a /8 can "vote" and move as a group ? http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-> space
062/8 Apr 97 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 080/8 Apr 01 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 081/8 Apr 01 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 082/8 Nov 02 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 193/8 May 93 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 194/8 May 93 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 195/8 May 93 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 212/8 Oct 97 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 213/8 Mar 99 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 217/8 Jun 00 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) =============================================
How does RIPE pay each year for each /8 ?
You are just insulting the people from RIPE NCC and the Board Members with your stupid bullying and ranting about the budget.
I am not bullying. Anyone who knows me, knows better.
Instead of insulting these people you could actually make a point by actually reading the budget before it goes to the general assembly for voting. If it doesn't please you, then raise your voice in a polite manner and request changes. If you don't like it even then, you have to cast your vote against it. And if you don't want to go to the coffee club, then send a proxy for your vote.
I am raising my voice in a polite way. Asking why a ticket requests budgets out to 126 euros is a question and not a statement of anyones direct competence.
You know, RIPE is a democracy. Don't blame others if you choose not to participate in it.
RIPE has never been a democracy. There is an illusion, and unless a member is prepared to dedicate a full time person to the task, keeping up with the policies and politics is impossible. The whole point of paying RIPE to 'do it' is in the hope that someone else has our best interests at heart. My fear is that RIPE is becoming one of those self-perpetuating NGOs that grows far beyond it's original remit or function. Thinking about this is a practical vein, how about a 'DORMANT' registry category, where the LIR makes less than 5 requests a year ? I am in that roughly that category, and with some tuning, a number of us 'legacy' LIRs would be covered. Peter
Sorry Andre but I'm with Peter on this one. The RIPE fees simply don't add up, its an expensive organisation and it needs to trim a lot of the fat out of it. See Peters message on the tickets, if it really costs that much then we have a severe problem, some people don't even pay that much money for a years worth of DSL access. Regards, Neil.
-----Original Message----- From: lir-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:lir-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Andre Oppermann Sent: 25 November 2002 17:43 To: Peter Galbavy Cc: Gert Doering; Axel Pawlik; Local IR Working Group Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
Peter Galbavy wrote:
Those documents are written in the best
EU-bureaucrating-English that
money can't sell. Most stuff I see go past as announcements has me asleep before the first paragraph. I have tried to (quickly) read the 2003 budget statement. Makes no sense as there is not enough information there for anyone to make a value judgement. The document says 'X' and not 'X because'.
What I cannot understand - sorry, it makes no sense - is why the budget requires new members ? Why is the budget not growth/shrinkage neutral ? New members should pay for their own 'new' requirements through the set-up fee. Again, sorry to make accusations, but whoever created a non-growth neutral budget is NOT doing their job right.
Peter,
why don't you go to your CFO or accountant and let them interpret the budget for you? You don't seem to have any clue how budgeting and business plans work. I think everyone on this list would be very grateful if you'd stop ranting until you understand economics 101.
Cheers -- Andre
That would be the RIPE board.
OK. I remember something about elections, but will any board members here please speak up ? In your opinion is the 2003 budget correct ? Any doubts ? If you have no doubts, then I strongly suggest that you are not doing the right thing...
Ummm. They are separate. RIPE is "the community". The RIPE NCC is the body that does the work for us, and is paid for doing that. They do what *we* put in their activity plan.
I don't remember asking to be RIPE. I am a paying for the functions of the RIPE-NCC. I don't want any other services, research, funded testing or anything. What I (and many others) want is a registration service that is policy neutral because it is 'fair'. Anything else is just profiteering.
Peter
----- Original Message ----- From: "Neil J. McRae" <neil@COLT.NET> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 5:49 AM Subject: RE: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
Sorry Andre but I'm with Peter on this one. The RIPE fees simply don't add up, its an expensive organisation and it needs to trim =====
The fees have to add up, money just does not disappear....or should not.... Do the math, there is $168,000,000 per year per /8 in "broker fees"... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Where is it ? http://www.earthlink.net/home/broadband/staticip/upgrade/ Special savings: Current EarthLink DSL customers can add a static IP address to their service for just $15 more per month*! ==== Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... IPv16...COM...NET...AM...NZ...AE...FM...NR...SZ...AC...DE...FI...JM...NO...PR...ST...UZ http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee
----- Original Message ----- From: "Neil J. McRae" <neil@COLT.NET> Subject: RE: "fees do not add up" ?
Where is it ?
When you find it let us know. [and I'm not talking about the money].
I am sure they will... http://computerwire.info/cgnews/0C5EB2128724112B08256C7D000946E8 http://www.google.com/search?q=nominum+arin http://www.nominum.com/news/press-releases/arin-pr.html http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/3531_752211 http://www.ultradns.com/about/advisors.html http://www.arin.net/about_us/ab_org_bot.html http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.markletaskforce.org/ http://aspeninstitute.org/c&s/ipp.html
Hi, On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 05:28:05PM -0000, Peter Galbavy wrote:
I don't remember asking to be RIPE.
By signing the contract that said "I want to be a local registry" you became a member...
I am a paying for the functions of the RIPE-NCC. I don't want any other services, research, funded testing or anything. What I (and many others) want is a registration service that is policy neutral because it is 'fair'. Anything else is just profiteering.
So vote against those projects. I argue and vote *for* many of those things, because they bring value to the community at large. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 50279 (49875) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
By signing the contract that said "I want to be a local registry" you became a member...
Of RIPE for only the NCC function...
I am a paying for the functions of the RIPE-NCC. I don't want any other services, research, funded testing or anything. What I (and many others) want is a registration service that is policy neutral because it is 'fair'. Anything else is just profiteering.
So vote against those projects.
I argue and vote *for* many of those things, because they bring value to the community at large.
I will. I will read up on proxy voting but my suspicion is that not proxy, but postal voting will be the ultimate solution. Without knowing the detail of the proposals in advance (many proposals are formulated at a RIPE meeting) it is difficult to accurately instruct a proxy in a timely fashion. Peter
----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy@knowtion.net>
I am a paying for the functions of the RIPE-NCC. I don't want any other services, research, funded testing or anything. What I (and many others) want is a registration service that is policy neutral because it is 'fair'. Anything else is just profiteering.
So vote against those projects.
I argue and vote *for* many of those things, because they bring value to the community at large.
Apparently, ARIN approves the policies for the other RIRs... http://www.arin.net/policy/2002_2.html "Each RIR may charge an administration fee to cover each allocation made of these experimental resources." ====
Alex,
Due to the economic situation, we saw substantially less influx of new members over the course of the last twelve months than forecast, also we have lost member due to closures and mergers. As a result of that, the RIPE NCC will have a sizeable deficit this year.
I have not read the plans for next year so my apologies if this is stated in there, but I was curious at to what cost cutting measures have been taken at RIPE NCC? In the rest of the business we are by now pretty used to that... I hope that no one takes this as an offense, but I am just trying to understand better how RIPE NCC works. During this autumn I have had my first experience at establishing a LIR with RIPE and trying to work RIPE. It has been quite interesting and I have long been thinking of putting this as a presentation at the next RIPE meeting but I am not sure this would be useful or fill a purpose. Others have suggested I should wait for the outcome of the survey. - kurtis -
On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
It has been quite interesting and I have long been thinking of putting this as a presentation at the next RIPE meeting but I am not sure this would be useful or fill a purpose. Others have suggested I should wait for the outcome of the survey.
Well, expensive consulting agencies (like KPMG) produce nice surveys, but stats and numbers cannot replace live experience. So, I'd say let's hear it. ;-) Regards, Beri --------- Berislav Todorovic, Senior IP Specialist -------- ----- KPN Eurorings B.V. - IP Engineering/NOC/Support ----- ---- Telecomplein 5, 2516 CK Den Haag, NL ---- ----- Email: beri@eurorings.net <=> beri@EU.net ----
participants (13)
-
Andre Oppermann -
Andrius Kasparavicius -
Axel Pawlik -
Berislav Todorovic -
Fearghas McKay -
Gert Doering -
Jim Fleming -
Kurt Erik Lindqvist -
Lars Marowsky-Bree -
Maarten E. Linthorst -
Neil J. McRae -
Peter Galbavy -
Siegfried Langenbach