Gert Doering wrote:
I don't understand that question. You were complaining that people make this distinction "just to confuse matters" - and I was trying to give a precise definition as for what is what.
Especially it's not "RIPE *and* the RIPE NCC are both funded in some convoluted ways". RIPE is NOT (and can't be, by definition).
I know it is not an English acronym, but perhaps someone could translate what RIPE stands for ? It is not "the European ISP club" is it ? It is the European IP coordination function (AFAICR). I dislike people pretending that RIPE-NCC membership fees do not fund RIPE activities. Else we would only see costs associated with running a registry in the *RIPE-NCC* annual report.
Because the system is weighted in such a way that getting a vote proposed, let alone voted on by any real number of people, is difficult to impossible.
I can't agree with that statement.
I have been quite successful in changing some of those pieces that annoyed me.
From reading the docs a few months ago, I need to find 5% of the membership to agree to any proposal I may make to be put before a RIPE annual meeting (for example to propose the RIPE/RIPE-NCC immediately cease all non-registry related activities and to begin a program of rationalisation that reflects
But that is / was your job ? If you have close to 100% of your working day dedicated to RIPE / regulatory affairs / whatever, then getting involved is easy. People in(/friends with people in) RIPE/RIPE-NCC are basically in control. Most members do not even have anyone who reads this stuff. Hence my comment about apathy. the needs of the industry). I have NO communication path to approach this notional 5% as I do not have access to a membership list, and I dislike spamming folks anyway. Not all members are on an open mailing list (AFAIK) - or rather not all those who are in a position to vote on behalf oif their company. Without knowing who are members, and how many are "5%" I cannot try to put forward a democratic proposal of the sort above. On the other hand, the executive board can put forward proposals unconditionally - or have I remembered wrong ?
In what way is "getting an AS number from the competition" something that's harmful for your business in the long run?
AS is OK - it is for the lifetime of the assignment, except the maintainer object is required for changes and last time I asked, new maintainer objects are only for members.
As far as I understand your situation, getting a PI address block through any other ISP, and announcing that via your AS (that you have already) should solve your needs without causing any competitive problems either.
PI is "wasteful" and not guarenteed (for some value of that word) routeable. PA is owned by the upstream, and also makes most multihoming impossible. I have pre-PI/PA space I can use for my own self, but some of this is not actually just about my specific case.
Isn't that exactly what the activity plan is about, which is agreed-upon on a very specific date that was announced *WELL* in advanced, and where every LIR can go and vote for or against? You can even bring proxy votes.
I oppose the whole concept of having a plan, not the plan. If the sole activity was registry services, there would be no need for a plan. Peter