Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
I am just trying to understand you reasoning. So you agree that the projects of RIPE NCC are useful, but you don't really want to pay for them?
No, not quite. I agree that *some* of the non registry projects that RIPE has undertaken are useful. I strongly object however to not being consulted if *my* money shoul be spent on them. The problem here is that there is some sort of belief that there is a democracy operating at RIPE and that the membership fees are some sort of tax that goes into a shared pot. This view, IMHO, is flawed. RIPE is a self-agrandising monopoly that abuses its position to extract money from a wide range of "members" that, ultimately, cannot be bothered with arguing about a "few thousand euro" for the service they get - because for most member representatives, this is not their own money but that of their employers - and why should they fight the system ? Where is the cost-based charging scheme that other monopolies or (using UK Oftel speak, "significant market power") companies are forced to use ?
Personally I am not sure this is so much of an issue over if the RIPE NCC should do certain projects, as I think this is an issue over increased transparency in financials, information to the membership and better reporting on project progress/costs to the membership.
You missed the bit about *asking* us what we think. That is the point I am trying to make - everyone "in power" conveniently forgets the consultation / approval part and pretends that a one way information channel is enough. Peter