Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ......
In a message dated 11/08/03 17:51:19 W. Europe Daylight Time, daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net writes:
I have not stopped listening to concrete ideas about improving the RIPE NCC.
I am still here at the RIPE NCC working and listening. Of course the bureaucratic developments you sneer at *do* happen to some degree. This is inevitable and both you and I know it. The ability of individuals like you and me to influence things immediately and directly is reduced. Of course I personally I do not agree with all things the RIRs do and more often I do not agree with *how* things are done.
What seems to divide us is that I still work to improve the 'least of all evils' structure and you sneer at it providing no alternative. I would hope that more people will chose the former instead of the latter. I also hope that people still see the relative mertis and the differences in legitimacy that exist between the various organisations. Sneering at the RIPE NCC without suggesting either alternatives or improvements does not help.
I stand 100% with Daniel here. I can't speak for the others RIRs but I strongly believe the RIPE-NCC has made significant efforts in the recent past to listen to its membership, streamline procedures, and positively react to constructive criticism. There is more work to do, no doubt about it, but I can't see how flaming on mailing lists helps. Whomever has concrete ideas: I propose we move this discussion to the ncc-services-wg list/group, that was created exactly for this purpose. Daniele
Bovio@aol.com wrote:
I stand 100% with Daniel here. I can't speak for the others RIRs but I strongly believe the RIPE-NCC has made significant efforts in the recent past to listen to its membership, streamline procedures, and positively react to constructive criticism.
There is more work to do, no doubt about it, but I can't see how flaming on mailing lists helps.
Whomever has concrete ideas: I propose we move this discussion to the ncc-services-wg list/group, that was created exactly for this purpose.
OK, let me try to be clear and rational about my primary objections to the way that RIPE works now: 1. Everyone pussyfoots around the issue of RIPE =?= RIPE-NCC. As the funding for both are out of the same pockets, please STOP trying to make that distinction. If RIPE (as a natural monopoly) was classed like BT, then this practise would be seen as cross-subsidisation. 2. RIPE, again as a natural monopoly, does NOT offer "members" the choice of opting out of the "fluffy stuff". RIPE should, IMHO, provide registry services ONLY and base its costs on that. The other hand waving, experimental, attempted standard setting stuff should be optional and extra. At the moment, those of us who just want IPes and ASes have to pay for others to play with their academic toys. Why ? 3. The registry should be run efficiently, not just "quickly". From the reports that others have sent me off-list in the past, my suspicions are strong that there are basically too many staff at RIPE. We're back to the industrial rationalisation issues of the 80's for deities sake... Anyone in the UK remember the stories about Leyland workers on night shift being caught sleeping on cots they brough in to work ? I get that feeling about RIPE sometimes. Does anyone believe that RIPE is not a "natural monopoly" for IP registry services in Europe ? If it isn't, as I predicate it is, then I get choice and can take my business elsewhere. Going to an "ISP" is not the choice I can make, so don't try that one. rgds, -- Peter
Hi, On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 10:19:44AM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote:
1. Everyone pussyfoots around the issue of RIPE =?= RIPE-NCC. As the funding for both are out of the same pockets, please STOP trying to make that distinction. If RIPE (as a natural monopoly) was classed like BT, then this practise would be seen as cross-subsidisation.
You're confused. RIPE isn't funded in any way. RIPE is "all of us". The funding goes to the RIPE NCC, which has offices, employees, and needs money to do the work that RIPE (we) ask them to do. [..]
2. RIPE, again as a natural monopoly, does NOT offer "members" the choice of opting out of the "fluffy stuff". RIPE should, IMHO, provide registry services ONLY and base its costs on that. The other hand waving, experimental, attempted standard setting stuff should be optional and extra. At the moment, those of us who just want IPes and ASes have to pay for others to play with their academic toys. Why ?
Because the majority of the members hasn't voted against it. [..]
Does anyone believe that RIPE is not a "natural monopoly" for IP registry services in Europe ? If it isn't, as I predicate it is, then I get choice and can take my business elsewhere. Going to an "ISP" is not the choice I can make, so don't try that one.
It is a natural monopoly in the way that you can't go elsewhere if you want RIPE member services. But then, how else do you want to do hierarchical distribution of a limited resource? On the other hand, if you just want IP addresses and AS numbers, you *can* go through an ISP (but it will reduce the number of options that you have). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56535 (56318) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Gert Doering wrote:
You're confused. RIPE isn't funded in any way. RIPE is "all of us".
The funding goes to the RIPE NCC, which has offices, employees, and needs money to do the work that RIPE (we) ask them to do.
Then why do people (in RIPE / RIPC NCC) make a distinction ?
2. RIPE, again as a natural monopoly, does NOT offer "members" the choice of opting out of the "fluffy stuff". RIPE should, IMHO, provide registry services ONLY and base its costs on that. The other hand waving, experimental, attempted standard setting stuff should be optional and extra. At the moment, those of us who just want IPes and ASes have to pay for others to play with their academic toys. Why ?
Because the majority of the members hasn't voted against it.
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. This is getting recursive.
It is a natural monopoly in the way that you can't go elsewhere if you want RIPE member services. But then, how else do you want to do hierarchical distribution of a limited resource?
On the other hand, if you just want IP addresses and AS numbers, you *can* go through an ISP (but it will reduce the number of options that you have).
No you cannot, because you are then buying from your (potential) competition. RIPE/RIPE-NCC is supposed to be neutral, but is using that neutrality to assist in its own perpetualtion of the things I am complaining about. I am not looking to break the natural monopoly, but rather I am looking to move to a situation where the "monopoly" stuff is walled off from the optional stuff that RIPE/RIPE-NCC management (and friends) use to pay for their own pet projects. I am happy to pay on a cost basis for the "monopoly" stuff, but I don't get a choice. Peter Peter
I am not looking to break the natural monopoly, but rather I am looking to move to a situation where the "monopoly" stuff is walled off from the optional stuff that RIPE/RIPE-NCC management (and friends) use to pay for their own pet projects. I am happy to pay on a cost basis for the "monopoly" stuff, but I don't get a choice.
This was something i raised years ago prompted mainly by the test traffic white elephant which used registry monies to plod along and then eventually go on a subscription basis, and this something i had no intention of ever using but still the registry i was with paid its money and had no say over how it was used. Something that has been repeated over and over again is that the NCC should be a registry not a research dept for internet trends and toys. There should be 4 main functions 1.registry services (good and timely) 2. database repository (and related DB functions) 3. Training services (mainly for new LIR's to get them up to speed) 4. RIPE meeting organization All of which the NCC do well and should be commended, anything else is surplus to requirement there is one other thing the NCC has never done and never fully justified and that is a help desk you can talk to. Other RIR's do it. I think it helps cut away the sterile faceless image and lets you see what you are getting for your money - discuss Stephen Burley Internet Communications Consultant Africonnect
Stephen Burley wrote:
1.registry services (good and timely) 2. database repository (and related DB functions) 3. Training services (mainly for new LIR's to get them up to speed) 4. RIPE meeting organization
I agree with 1-3. I think 4 should be a "spare time" activity or one organised by an EU Internet "club". If 4 can be done part time by *one* person, then I am happy to pay for my part of the time. Peter
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Peter Galbavy wrote:
Stephen Burley wrote:
1.registry services (good and timely) 2. database repository (and related DB functions) 3. Training services (mainly for new LIR's to get them up to speed) 4. RIPE meeting organization
I agree with 1-3. I think 4 should be a "spare time" activity or one organised by an EU Internet "club". If 4 can be done part time by *one* person, then I am happy to pay for my part of the time.
i agree with 1+2+4. 3 should be covered on a cost basis by the attendees. if the cost of a training session is 5000euro (room, lunch, instructor time, etc) and 25 attend, then the cost should be 200euro per attendee, with no affect on the overall ncc budget.
Peter
Hank Nussbacher
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Peter Galbavy wrote:
Stephen Burley wrote:
1.registry services (good and timely) 2. database repository (and related DB functions) 3. Training services (mainly for new LIR's to get them up to speed) 4. RIPE meeting organization
I agree with 1-3. I think 4 should be a "spare time" activity or one organised by an EU Internet "club". If 4 can be done part time by *one* person, then I am happy to pay for my part of the time.
i agree with 1+2+4. 3 should be covered on a cost basis by the attendees. if the cost of a training session is 5000euro (room, lunch, instructor time, etc) and 25 attend, then the cost should be 200euro per attendee, with no affect on the overall ncc budget.
Hello. In the first moment, this proposal would prevent people that doesnt go to training sessions to pay it. This would benefit the people in some smaller/far away countries if the NCC wouldnt have a program all around its service region... I dont know if im right, but i figure, that the main idea for everybody to pay for the training is getting everybody trained -- as it is included. I only see one aspect/situation against it: a trained LIR person exchanges jobs, going into a company that will manage a new LIR. In this case should this LIR pay for the training of its already-trained human resource? Or it is paying for the training that person got some time ago? About this topic, i have a positive feeling about the recent extending of training courses to DNS-SEC and RRC by the NCC.
Peter
Hank Nussbacher
Regards, ./Carlos "Upgrade the Internet! -- Now!" -------------- [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt] http://www.fccn.pt <cfriacas@fccn.pt>, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax:+351 218472167 "Internet is just routes (125953/461), naming (millions) and... people!"
At 08:37 AM 13-08-03 +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote:
I dont know if im right, but i figure, that the main idea for everybody to pay for the training is getting everybody trained -- as it is included. I only see one aspect/situation against it: a trained LIR person exchanges jobs, going into a company that will manage a new LIR. In this case should this LIR pay for the training of its already-trained human resource? Or it is paying for the training that person got some time ago?
when i go to an MS course or a Cisco course, I do not expect your company to partially fund my attendence. I fail to see how a newly trained LIR benefits me - anymore so than a newly trained CCIE in some place 1000km away might benefit me. -Hank
Peter
Hank Nussbacher
Regards,
./Carlos "Upgrade the Internet! -- Now!" -------------- [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt] http://www.fccn.pt <cfriacas@fccn.pt>, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax:+351 218472167
"Internet is just routes (125953/461), naming (millions) and... people!"
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 08:37 AM 13-08-03 +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote:
I dont know if im right, but i figure, that the main idea for everybody to pay for the training is getting everybody trained -- as it is included. I only see one aspect/situation against it: a trained LIR person exchanges jobs, going into a company that will manage a new LIR. In this case should this LIR pay for the training of its already-trained human resource? Or it is paying for the training that person got some time ago?
when i go to an MS course or a Cisco course, I do not expect your company to partially fund my attendence. I fail to see how a newly trained LIR benefits me - anymore so than a newly trained CCIE in some place 1000km away might benefit me.
-Hank
That is pretty much my doubt... it is assumed that each LIR only pays for the training of *its own* staff??? -- i expect to read a YES soon. If a LIR has *one* person during 5 years doing RIPE work, it is expected that this person will attend trainings every year? -- as a recycling process? Shouldnt one LIR get a free registration to a meeting if anybody goes to training during a certain period? -- free registrations are provided to new LIRs, if im not mistaken... Regards, ./Carlos "Upgrade the Internet! -- Now!" -------------- [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt] http://www.fccn.pt <cfriacas@fccn.pt>, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax:+351 218472167 "Internet is just routes (125953/461), naming (millions) and... people!"
On onsdag, aug 13, 2003, at 10:56 Europe/Stockholm, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I dont know if im right, but i figure, that the main idea for everybody to pay for the training is getting everybody trained -- as it is included. I only see one aspect/situation against it: a trained LIR person exchanges jobs, going into a company that will manage a new LIR. In this case should this LIR pay for the training of its already-trained human resource? Or it is paying for the training that person got some time ago?
when i go to an MS course or a Cisco course, I do not expect your company to partially fund my attendence. I fail to see how a newly trained LIR benefits me - anymore so than a newly trained CCIE in some place 1000km away might benefit me.
I would actually prefer that MS and Cisco trained people so that they would not need all that support staff and could lower the costs of my products. You will end up paying for that one way or the other. Best regards, - kurtis -
i agree with 1+2+4. 3 should be covered on a cost basis by the attendees. if the cost of a training session is 5000euro (room, lunch, instructor time, etc) and 25 attend, then the cost should be 200euro per attendee, with no affect on the overall ncc budget.
Hello.
In the first moment, this proposal would prevent people that doesnt go to training sessions to pay it. This would benefit the people in some smaller/far away countries if the NCC wouldnt have a program all around its service region...
I dont know if im right, but i figure, that the main idea for everybody to pay for the training is getting everybody trained -- as it is included. I only see one aspect/situation against it: a trained LIR person exchanges jobs, going into a company that will manage a new LIR. In this case should this LIR pay for the training of its already-trained human resource? Or it is paying for the training that person got some time ago?
About this topic, i have a positive feeling about the recent extending of training courses to DNS-SEC and RRC by the NCC.
Hostmasters and LIR managers that understands the RIPE process well, and also gets training on how to run a LIR effectively helps the RIPE NCC off-load it's work, and should be considered as helping us save costs rather than contribute to them. - kurtis -
Hi!
Stephen Burley wrote:
1.registry services (good and timely) 2. database repository (and related DB functions) 3. Training services (mainly for new LIR's to get them up to speed) 4. RIPE meeting organization
I agree with 1-3. I think 4 should be a "spare time" activity or one organised by an EU Internet "club". If 4 can be done part time by *one* person, then I am happy to pay for my part of the time.
i agree with 1+2+4. 3 should be covered on a cost basis by the attendees. if the cost of a training session is 5000euro (room, lunch, instructor time, etc) and 25 attend, then the cost should be 200euro per attendee, with no affect on the overall ncc budget.
3: In some countries, 200EUR do make a difference. Are training courses such a drain on budgets ? Better having people trained and some sort of coherent "qualification" is available than having no level of discussion, because everyone "saves" on that topic. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 17 years to go ! LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi@LF.net Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372
At 09:53 AM 13-08-03 +0200, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
i agree with 1+2+4. 3 should be covered on a cost basis by the attendees. if the cost of a training session is 5000euro (room, lunch, instructor time, etc) and 25 attend, then the cost should be 200euro per attendee, with no affect on the overall ncc budget.
3: In some countries, 200EUR do make a difference. Are training courses such a drain on budgets ? Better having people trained and some sort of coherent "qualification" is available than having no level of discussion, because everyone "saves" on that topic.
I must be missing something. How does a better trained LIR in some foreign country help me do my job better? Whatever the argument would be - replace "better trained LIR", with "Cisco CCIE" when replying. -Hank
-- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 17 years to go ! LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi@LF.net Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372
Hi, On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:59:45AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I must be missing something. How does a better trained LIR in some foreign country help me do my job better? Whatever the argument would be - replace "better trained LIR", with "Cisco CCIE" when replying. -Hank
Actually you benefit from both. Less stupid mistakes in database handling (LIR) or in BGP setup (CCIE). Both have the potential to affect all of us. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56535 (56318) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 10:06:15 +0200 Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:59:45AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I must be missing something. How does a better trained LIR in some foreign country help me do my job better? Whatever the argument would be - replace "better trained LIR", with "Cisco CCIE" when replying. -Hank
Actually you benefit from both. Less stupid mistakes in database handling (LIR) or in BGP setup (CCIE). Both have the potential to affect all of us.
Here I have to fully agree with you. Especialy on broken DB entries ... The bigger the LIS the less maintained is the database I think ... On the other hand, you need people capable of handling all the technical equipment and that is not cheap anyway, so a little cost for a training course should not matter either. BTW, as far as I know only the first LIR training (1 or 2 persons) is for free, for the other you have to pay allready, or am I wrong here ? Best regards Matthias -- _;\_ Matthias Cramer / mc322-ripe System & Network Manager /_. \ Dolphins Network Systems AG Phone +41-1-847'45'45 |/ -\ .) Libernstrasse 24 Fax +41-1-847'45'49 -'^`- \; CH-8112 Otelfingen http://www.dolphins.ch/ GnuPG 1024D/2D208250 = DBC6 65B6 7083 1029 781E 3959 B62F DF1C 2D20 8250
Hi Matthias, Matthias Cramer <cramer@dolphins.ch> wrote: [...]
BTW, as far as I know only the first LIR training (1 or 2 persons) is for free, for the other you have to pay allready, or am I wrong here ?
There are no charges made for any of the training courses we provide. The training service is provided according to the "RIPE NCC Local IR Training Policies" document, which can be found at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-154.html> We would like to update this document in the near future and welcome input from the membership. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:59:45AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I must be missing something. How does a better trained LIR in some foreign country help me do my job better? Whatever the argument would be - replace "better trained LIR", with "Cisco CCIE" when replying. -Hank
Actually you benefit from both. Less stupid mistakes in database handling (LIR) or in BGP setup (CCIE). Both have the potential to affect all of us.
Sorry, cannot agree fully with this. I agree with the potential to affect all, but the outcome of "stupid mistakes" should be customers running away from those companies (get the training they are paying or go away!)-- and in some cases they might go knocking on your door... Regards, ./Carlos "Upgrade the Internet! -- Now!" -------------- [http://www.ip6.fccn.pt] http://www.fccn.pt <cfriacas@fccn.pt>, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN, Wide Area Network Workgroup FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional fax:+351 218472167 "Internet is just routes (125953/461), naming (millions) and... people!"
At 10:06 AM 13-08-03 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 10:59:45AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I must be missing something. How does a better trained LIR in some foreign country help me do my job better? Whatever the argument would be - replace "better trained LIR", with "Cisco CCIE" when replying. -Hank
Actually you benefit from both. Less stupid mistakes in database handling (LIR) or in BGP setup (CCIE). Both have the potential to affect all of us.
based on this logic i should be funding training for everyone. and ripe ncc should provide free training along with airfare and hotel for every LIR to send their people. -Hank
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56535 (56318)
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Hi, On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:12:35AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Actually you benefit from both. Less stupid mistakes in database handling (LIR) or in BGP setup (CCIE). Both have the potential to affect all of us.
based on this logic i should be funding training for everyone. and ripe ncc should provide free training along with airfare and hotel for every LIR to send their people. -Hank
One can certainly overdo things... - I think the way it is is a good compromise. People are encouraged to go to the training, and as the training location is moving around, airfare/hotel costs can be kept down. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56535 (56318) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Considering the strong interests who are trying to screw over as many people as they can get away with, and considering to what extent they have already been able to pervert ICANN, I can certainly not see the sense in ripping into RIPE to make sure that we have no organization which will stand up for european interests when the pirates of DNS comes for our blood next time. But considering that this entire thread started out with yet another failure (almost a yearly recurrent thing these days) by the RIPE community to find a way where customers can be offered multi-homing in practical and efficient way, is almost a good argument for the steam-rolling to proceed with no undue delay. While there may not be any perfect solution to multihoming, LIR training or even the general level of RIPE activities, there are actual workable solutions, and I think there are plenty of places where progress could be easily made. Provided of course, that people really want progress, something which is increasingly in doubt judging from these lists. It is no wonder governments are starting to get involved in internet regulation if the RIPE community is supposed to be "best practice" example for self government :-( I think it is about time that people pull their heads out of their behind and get to work on the actual problems, or at least shut up and get out of the way so other people can do so. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Hi!
Considering the strong interests who are trying to screw over as many people as they can get away with, and considering to what extent they have already been able to pervert ICANN, I can certainly not see the sense in ripping into RIPE to make sure that we have no organization which will stand up for european interests when the pirates of DNS comes for our blood next time.
Thanks for the wise words. Paying a few thousand EURs per year to have a very professional organisation lobbying for our interests worldwide. Maybe many fine lunches, dinners, but even more very professional work! Yes, RIPE is worth every cent. Please re-consider the "cost-cutting-efforts" going on: If there had been no RIPE with crystal-clear policies as a very good example of self-gouvernance, many national government regulations would be in place instead -- and it would be a big mess. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 17 years to go ! LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi@LF.net Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372
Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks Date: Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 12:08:07PM +0200 Quoting Kurt Jaeger (lists@complx.LF.net):
If there had been no RIPE with crystal-clear policies as a very good example of self-gouvernance, many national government regulations would be in place instead -- and it would be a big mess.
Indeed -- a swedish government investigation (SOU 2002:60) concluded: "In Europe it is RIPE who hands out IP address space to operators and other network owners. This arrangement has proved to be working, and there is no reason to alter it at the moment." SOU 2002:60, page 377, my (abridged) translation. Please note -- this is the investigation which writes the bill that implements the EU communications directive in Sweden; they have the theorethical power to suggest legislation that in effect forces all IP address allocation to be made by a government authority, per nation-state. I do not think we or the governements want that... -- Måns Nilsson Systems Specialist +46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE I wonder if I ought to tell them about my PREVIOUS LIFE as a COMPLETE STRANGER?
MN> Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks Date: Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 12:08:07PM +0200 Quoting Kurt Jaeger (lists@complx.LF.net):
If there had been no RIPE with crystal-clear policies as a very good example of self-gouvernance, many national government regulations would be in place instead -- and it would be a big mess.
MN> Indeed -- a swedish government investigation (SOU 2002:60) concluded: MN> "In Europe it is RIPE who hands out IP address space to operators MN> and other network owners. This arrangement has proved to be working, MN> and there is no reason to alter it at the moment." MN> SOU 2002:60, page 377, my (abridged) translation. MN> Please note -- this is the investigation which writes the bill that MN> implements the EU communications directive in Sweden; they have the MN> theorethical power to suggest legislation that in effect forces all MN> IP address allocation to be made by a government authority, per MN> nation-state. I do not think we or the governements want that... It depends. Recently, Ukrainian authority has made completely another statement. Serge. -- Best regards, Serge mailto:ben@kharkiv.net
Kurt,
Thanks for the wise words. Paying a few thousand EURs per year to have a very professional organisation lobbying for our interests worldwide. Maybe many fine lunches, dinners, but even more very professional work! Yes, RIPE is worth every cent.
I don't think anyone is against making sure that Europe is represented in the wide scale, but its not what we, and many others orignally signed up for. And its certainly not something that should be forced upon people. We signed up to the registration services.
If there had been no RIPE with crystal-clear policies as a very good example of self-gouvernance, many national government regulations would be in place instead -- and it would be a big mess.
Self governance?! There is no governance - there is apathy and the widening remit that the RIPE has been taking is not acceptable. There needs to be a way to limit / control these activities and also look at what really is value for money for the people who are paying for them. The first action should be that the RIPE meeting is self funding and the attendees/sponsors cover the cost of that meeting. The RIPE meeting should have no effect on day to day operations of the RIPE NCC also. Regards, Neil.
Hi!
Thanks for the wise words. Paying a few thousand EURs per year to have a very professional organisation lobbying for our interests worldwide. Maybe many fine lunches, dinners, but even more very professional work! Yes, RIPE is worth every cent.
I don't think anyone is against making sure that Europe is represented in the wide scale, but its not what we, and many others orignally signed up for. And its certainly not something that should be forced upon people. We signed up to the registration services.
When I signed up to the ripe mailing list in mid-1990, there was no registration service, but it was a coordination initiative for IP in Europe. That's OK for us (speaking for de.lfnet and probably for de.oberon as well).
If there had been no RIPE with crystal-clear policies as a very good example of self-gouvernance, many national government regulations would be in place instead -- and it would be a big mess.
Self governance?! There is no governance - there is apathy and the widening remit that the RIPE has been taking is not acceptable.
With the reports, meeting reports etc, my requirements for transparency and cost control are met, I have no problem. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 17 years to go ! LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi@LF.net Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372
When I signed up to the ripe mailing list in mid-1990, there was no registration service, but it was a coordination initiative for IP in Europe.
And that wasn't the RIPE NCC.
That's OK for us (speaking for de.lfnet and probably for de.oberon as well).
Yes but, as I recall, after the Terena split is when +everyone+ effectively signed up to the NCC.
With the reports, meeting reports etc, my requirements for transparency and cost control are met, I have no problem.
That isn't governance though is it? In my view the the RIPE NCC should look at ways of splitting the registration services away from "all the other stuff" and enable the members to sign up to just the registration services without funding all the other things that they may see little or no benefit from. Those that see benefit from activties like the route monitoring etc, can support them and fund them more directly. Just to be clear, I don't think anyone, in most cases, has an objection to what the RIPE has been doing or how its being done, its more an objection of the "forced" participation through the funding of the NCC which is completely unfair. The RIPE NCC management and board could easily deliver this, and if they looked at the situation with an open mind they should know that the current situation is unsustainable and they should be actively leading to resolve this rather than risk the dangers of burying their heads in the sand. Regards, Neil.
Neil J. McRae wrote:
Just to be clear, I don't think anyone, in most cases, has an objection to what the RIPE has been doing or how its being done, its more an objection of the "forced" participation through the funding of the NCC which is completely unfair.
Agreed from my perspective. Peter
Peter, On onsdag, aug 13, 2003, at 15:00 Europe/Stockholm, Peter Galbavy wrote:
Neil J. McRae wrote:
Just to be clear, I don't think anyone, in most cases, has an objection to what the RIPE has been doing or how its being done, its more an objection of the "forced" participation through the funding of the NCC which is completely unfair.
Agreed from my perspective.
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? Although I also think that the NCC needs to work on their financials, especially when their customers are in a down-turn, I also see that a number of the projects that the NCC deals with, doesn't really have a better home in the European Internet. If you look at what the RIRs do in the other regions, the more established ones as in ARIN and APNIC, also have activities outside their main focus. The RIRs have traditionally given a good co-operative framework for these types of projects. If we think that these projects are useful, we need to decide how they should be run and funded. 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. Best regards, - kurtis -
On Tuesday, Aug 19, 2003, at 23:22 Europe/Amsterdam, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
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.
I agree completely. This is why I welcomed Daniel's presentation in Barcelona regarding the new approach to measurements at the RIPE NCC. Let the projects prove their worth and let the members know fully what is going on. Joao
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
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.
You have been. You might not like how that process have been done, but you have most certainly had the opportunity to comment on it all on the mailinglists.
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.
I am not following this. Perhaps you could explain again.
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 ?
I think a lot of people "fight" the system. At every meeting and in many posts to the mailinglists over the years.
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.
No, I said in another email I think that the WG should discuss the projects, and running ones based on performance. However, the WG can not have the decision right as that is with the AGM.
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.
Oh so I am also "in power"? And we haven't even had the first meeting! Wow ;-) I don't think anyone have forgotten this. Much of the input from the KPMG survey centers around this and from what I understand that was the sole reason for Axel to start the effort. I am sure Axel can comment on this... Best regards, - kurtis -
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
You have been. You might not like how that process have been done, but you have most certainly had the opportunity to comment on it all on the mailinglists.
And opinions like mine are noted and then ignored. I am not alone in making these comments, but I may be unique in that I am my own employer, the RIPE membership fees are *mine* and I don't really care about being ridiculed for talking about the lack of cloth in the emporers new clothes in public.
You missed the bit about *asking* us what we think.
No, I said in another email I think that the WG should discuss the projects, and running ones based on performance. However, the WG can not have the decision right as that is with the AGM.
Why not ? The AGM should be a rubber stamp occasion where the "consensus" arrived at either on mailing lists on through online voting is approved for legal reasons. Come on, why not ? Your turn to answer a question instead of answering with another question.
Oh so I am also "in power"? And we haven't even had the first meeting! Wow ;-)
I was not referring to you individually, but making a general point about what the RIPE membership is meant to think they have power for.
I don't think anyone have forgotten this. Much of the input from the KPMG survey centers around this and from what I understand that was the sole reason for Axel to start the effort. I am sure Axel can comment on this...
I would have thought an opitional quarterly online survey would provide better value than a once-in-a-decade KPMG one. But change might come. Peter
Hi!
You have been. You might not like how that process have been done, but you have most certainly had the opportunity to comment on it all on the mailinglists.
And opinions like mine are noted and then ignored. I am not alone in making these comments, but I may be unique in that I am my own employer, the RIPE membership fees are *mine*
You're not unique in that.
and I don't really care about being ridiculed for talking about the lack of cloth in the emporers new clothes in public.
That's a bit too strong. RIPE wears nice summer clothes, light, but very much sufficient 8-)
I would have thought an opitional quarterly online survey would provide better value than a once-in-a-decade KPMG one. But change might come.
I assume this kind of rapid feedback collapses after a while under lack of participation. I would not mind if RIPE does this kind of survey, maybe we learn from it whether it works or not. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 17 years to go ! LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi@LF.net Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372
You have been. You might not like how that process have been done, but you have most certainly had the opportunity to comment on it all on the mailinglists.
And opinions like mine are noted and then ignored.
If you are alone - yes. From the discussions from the vinter/spring from what I can remember you where far from ignored.
I am not alone in making these comments, but I may be unique in that I am my own employer, the RIPE membership fees are *mine* and I don't really care about being ridiculed for talking about the lack of cloth in the emporers new clothes in public.
I don't see anyone ridiculing you. I see people disagreeing with you. They are in their full right to do so.
You missed the bit about *asking* us what we think.
No, I said in another email I think that the WG should discuss the projects, and running ones based on performance. However, the WG can not have the decision right as that is with the AGM.
Why not ? The AGM should be a rubber stamp occasion where the "consensus" arrived at either on mailing lists on through online voting is approved for legal reasons. Come on, why not ? Your turn to answer a question instead of answering with another question.
Read what I write above. I have no problem with the WG discussing the activities of the NCC. However the WG is open to _anyone_, not just NCC membership.
I don't think anyone have forgotten this. Much of the input from the KPMG survey centers around this and from what I understand that was the sole reason for Axel to start the effort. I am sure Axel can comment on this...
I would have thought an opitional quarterly online survey would provide better value than a once-in-a-decade KPMG one. But change might come.
I think a more often KPMG like survey is more of value than forcing the RIPE NCC management and staff live under quarterly stability. That is how large listed companies operates. I think the NCC have a bit to before being there... - kurtis -
At 20/08/2003 17:36 +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
I don't think anyone have forgotten [the cosultation process]. Much of the input from the KPMG survey centers around this and from what I understand that was the sole reason for Axel to start the effort. I am sure Axel can comment on this...
Axel is currently attending the APNIC meeting... Thus I am a few hours out of synch with the discussion. Bear with me. All the changes that you are seeing being introduced stem from the feedback of the 2002 survey of RIPE NCC members and shareholders. Discussions on the now defunct lir-wg mailing list have been valuable input, too. These changes include, but are not confined to: - Establishing the RIPE NCC Services WG - re-naming and re-chartering the LIR WG - Moving the General Meeting to the RIPE meeting - introducing the RIPE NCC Member Update newletter - using the Services WG for sanity checks with the community. Feedback that we have received, and discussion we had over the course of this year, indicate that these changes are welcome, and that the course we are charting for the next year are seen to improve the RIPE NCC's services for members and community. Thank you to all the contributors, on and off list. I feel a few words about the intented role of the RIPE NCC Service WG, and its interplay with the General Meeting are warranted... The RIPE NCC is a membership association under Dutch law. That means, its governance has to adhere to the rules Dutch law lays down (Joao has commented on that). As Daniele says, these rules say that assiciation governance has to be effected through General Meetings of the members, which need to be attended in person. To enable voting for members who cannot travel, a proxy system is foreseen, and is actually in use for years. We have looked at possibilities for Electronic Voting, unfortunately Dutch law has no provisions (yet?) for this. We have seen very low attendance of RIPE NCC General Meetings since 1998, in comparison with participation levels at RIPE meetings. Also, the agenda of General Meetings is inflexible, and proceedings might appear stiff, due to the very tight focus of those meetings. To alleviate the shortcomings of General Meetings, and to further clarify the role of the RIPE working groups, we have proposed that a RIPE NCC Services WG is set up. My intention was that this working group should act as a wider, more informal forum for interaction between the RIPE NCC, and its users. This includes members, but also the wider community. We want to use this working group for reports about our services (surprise...) and service levels, and for discussions about which services are needed, which are not, and what we should be doing to be of most efficient service to all. It will be a walk on a tightrope, for some time to come, to distinguish clearly between the roles of the Services WG and the General Meeting. The General Meeting will continue to be the formal tool for association governance, while the Services WG will serve as a more informal tool to guide the association's board and staff, in between the General Meetings. Formally, the Services WG has no hold over the association. I, and the Executive Board, would be incredible stupid, though, were we to ignore what is discussed here. Since I have your attention, I would like to urge the RIPE NCC members between you to go and register for the General Meeting on Friday, 5 September. We see an increase in registrants as compared to previous General Meetings, but the absolute numbers are still very disappointing. thanks, and regards, Axel
At 01:21 PM 13-08-03 +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote:
In my view the the RIPE NCC should look at ways of splitting the registration services away from "all the other stuff" and enable the members to sign up to just the registration services without funding all the other things that they may see little or no benefit from. Those that see benefit from activties like the route monitoring etc, can support them and fund them more directly.
i have no problem with ripe ncc's lobbying efforts, since i consider it a valid, sane, and non-biased opinion vs. the lawyers and opportunists that have crowded themselves into icann. that being said, i may be a minority voice among ripe ncc membership on this issue. what i am asking for is that ripe ncc break down all their functions - and "ask/poll" its paying membership which to continue and which not to pursue. example: if the majority are in favor of funding ripe ncc training, i will have no problem with it. i will even become an advocate for it. -hank
Just to be clear, I don't think anyone, in most cases, has an objection to what the RIPE has been doing or how its being done, its more an objection of the "forced" participation through the funding of the NCC which is completely unfair.
The RIPE NCC management and board could easily deliver this, and if they looked at the situation with an open mind they should know that the current situation is unsustainable and they should be actively leading to resolve this rather than risk the dangers of burying their heads in the sand.
Regards,
Hi, On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 04:14:23PM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
that being said, i may be a minority voice among ripe ncc membership on this issue. what i am asking for is that ripe ncc break down all their functions - and "ask/poll" its paying membership which to continue and which not to pursue. example: if the majority are in favor of funding ripe ncc training, i will have no problem with it. i will even become an advocate for it.
This is something I would agree on. Break down the functions, ask the members, and then do what the majority wants. Of course this doesn't mean that everybody is happy with the result :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56535 (56318) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
This is something I would agree on. Break down the functions, ask the members, and then do what the majority wants.
Of course this doesn't mean that everybody is happy with the result :-)
Some might say this is the situation we are in now. Frankly, I think the core part of the RIPE NCC should be something thats set in stone as much as it can be, with the other activities have a process to start and finish them that needs to have a reasonably majority of the membership in favour to approve, proposals should have an indication of the budget and how it is expected to be funded, with clear end deliverables and timescales. Regards, Neil.
At 03:36 PM 13-08-03 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 04:14:23PM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
that being said, i may be a minority voice among ripe ncc membership on this issue. what i am asking for is that ripe ncc break down all their functions - and "ask/poll" its paying membership which to continue and which not to pursue. example: if the majority are in favor of funding ripe ncc training, i will have no problem with it. i will even become an advocate for it.
This is something I would agree on. Break down the functions, ask the members, and then do what the majority wants.
Of course this doesn't mean that everybody is happy with the result :-)
neither will i. thats what makes it good. -hank
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56535 (56318)
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
that being said, i may be a minority voice among ripe ncc membership on this issue. what i am asking for is that ripe ncc break down all their functions - and "ask/poll" its paying membership which to continue and which not to pursue. example: if the majority are in favor of funding ripe ncc training, i will have no problem with it. i will even become an advocate for it.
This is something I would agree on. Break down the functions, ask the members, and then do what the majority wants.
Even more important. I would like to see the projects progress reported at the NCC services WG at each RIPE meeting, and perhaps also a general cost structure. Not that I want to now what each member in the project costs, but I want to see the general relationship between that project and overall cost figures. Best regards, - kurtis -
Hi!
what i am asking for is that ripe ncc break down all their functions - and "ask/poll" its paying membership which to continue and which not to pursue.
That's very fine with me. It is my impression that the RIPE budget is transparent enough already to allow this. So there's only the "poll" step missing. -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 17 years to go ! LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi@LF.net Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372
Hi, On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:58:20AM +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote:
The first action should be that the RIPE meeting is self funding and the attendees/sponsors cover the cost of that meeting. The RIPE meeting should have no effect on day to day operations of the RIPE NCC also.
If I remember the figures correctly, the RIPE meeting is actually making a surplus. (Could someone please point at the proper numbers to back this, or correct me if I'm wrong?). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56535 (56318) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 14:07, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:58:20AM +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote:
The first action should be that the RIPE meeting is self funding and the attendees/sponsors cover the cost of that meeting. The RIPE meeting should have no effect on day to day operations of the RIPE NCC also.
If I remember the figures correctly, the RIPE meeting is actually making a surplus. (Could someone please point at the proper numbers to back this, or correct me if I'm wrong?).
Last set of accounts I saw showed the RIPE meetings making a loss (albeit not a major one). This was on the agenda to be tackled by the EB. Not sure what the current situation is, but I don't see the RIPE meeting fees having gone up much. Nigel -- Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com>
On onsdag, aug 13, 2003, at 12:58 Europe/Stockholm, Neil J. McRae wrote:
The first action should be that the RIPE meeting is self funding and the attendees/sponsors cover the cost of that meeting. The RIPE meeting should have no effect on day to day operations of the RIPE NCC also.
For what all I know, the RIPE meeting is self-funding? - kurtis -
Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Thanks for the wise words. Paying a few thousand EURs per year to have a very professional organisation lobbying for our interests worldwide. Maybe many fine lunches, dinners, but even more very professional work! Yes, RIPE is worth every cent.
Then form an independent lobbying group, and don't use my money for it. Certain organisations - like the RIPE and maybe LINX as a random examples - work as an industry body up until a point where consensus is no longer possible because of size. Then either politics or apathy or both get in the way, and those in control get to stay in control by virtue of being good at maintaining a status quo that is not offensive enough for people to collectively vote against. Perhaps I am suggestion that point is here, now.
Please re-consider the "cost-cutting-efforts" going on:
If there had been no RIPE with crystal-clear policies as a very good example of self-gouvernance, many national government regulations would be in place instead -- and it would be a big mess.
Er, and it isn't now ? What other organisation drops 50% annual membership fee rises on a community that has no choice ? Peter
Hi, On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 12:10:10PM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote:
Er, and it isn't now ? What other organisation drops 50% annual membership fee rises on a community that has no choice ?
You're surely aware of the 50% *drop* in membership fees in the years before? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56535 (56318) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On onsdag, aug 13, 2003, at 13:10 Europe/Stockholm, Peter Galbavy wrote:
Please re-consider the "cost-cutting-efforts" going on:
If there had been no RIPE with crystal-clear policies as a very good example of self-gouvernance, many national government regulations would be in place instead -- and it would be a big mess.
Er, and it isn't now ? What other organisation drops 50% annual membership fee rises on a community that has no choice ?
What organizations have had the same low turn-out for AGMs and interest in the agendas of the AGMs? Even if you could not attend the AGM, did you bring up the issues on the mailinglists? Remember that RIPE NCC is not there by it self. It is there for the reasons, and in the way we have choose to have it. It has changed the ways we have voted (or abstained from voted) it to change. We might not like the outcome, but the better that we are now discussing this and that we had the KPMG survey to act as a starting point to move on. Best regards, - kurtis -
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
What organizations have had the same low turn-out for AGMs and interest in the agendas of the AGMs? Even if you could not attend the AGM, did you bring up the issues on the mailinglists? Remember that RIPE NCC is not there by it self. It is there for the reasons, and in the way we have choose to have it. It has changed the ways we have voted (or abstained from voted) it to change. We might not like the outcome, but the better that we are now discussing this and that we had the KPMG survey to act as a starting point to move on.
And why is personal attendence at an AGM required to propose and vote on ongoing use of members funds ? I am amazed that no one has proposed any sort of online system. Or would that remove too much power from the professional bureaucrats that live off RIPE ? Peter
What organizations have had the same low turn-out for AGMs and interest in the agendas of the AGMs? Even if you could not attend the AGM, did you bring up the issues on the mailinglists? Remember that RIPE NCC is not there by it self. It is there for the reasons, and in the way we have choose to have it. It has changed the ways we have voted (or abstained from voted) it to change. We might not like the outcome, but the better that we are now discussing this and that we had the KPMG survey to act as a starting point to move on.
And why is personal attendence at an AGM required to propose and vote on ongoing use of members funds ?
Personal attendance is a problem and is one of the issues that came out of the survey. From what I understand easier proxy voting is being worked on as well as on-line voting. Someone from RIPE NCC board or the RIPE NCC can probably give you more details. Are you also saying that having to have the AGM vote is a problem? In that case how would you else want to do it? Voting anytime through out the year if enough people called for a vote? That would make it more or less impossible to make or follow a budget in any reasonable way.
I am amazed that no one has proposed any sort of online system.
For voting? Have you read the lir-wg list from this spring and the results of the KPMG survey as well as the presentations made by Axel of suggested improvements? Did you bring this up when you became a RIPE NCC member? I personally think we should have gone for on-line voting earlier and that holding the AGM with the RIPE meetings would have been better. But I haven't blamed the men in black for this, as I have never proposed something else myself.
Or would that remove too much power from the professional bureaucrats that live off RIPE ?
Have anyone opposed this? Or are you just assuming that the world is a conspiracy against you? RIPE and the RIPE NCC is only as good as what you help it make with suggestions and constructive comments. - kurtis -
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
Are you also saying that having to have the AGM vote is a problem? In that case how would you else want to do it? Voting anytime through out the year if enough people called for a vote? That would make it more or less impossible to make or follow a budget in any reasonable way.
I do not believe that the use of the AGM is appropriate for the "big switch" being used to approve a proposed budget that included 100% of projects. The budget needs approval, but it appears to much "yes or no". There is no consultation - formal, bot mailing list chatter - on what projects are approved for inclusion into said budget approval.
For voting? Have you read the lir-wg list from this spring and the results of the KPMG survey as well as the presentations made by Axel of suggested improvements? Did you bring this up when you became a RIPE NCC member?
I was not aware of the scale of the issue, and the membership fee was not increased by 50% without much consultation *before* I became a member.
Have anyone opposed this? Or are you just assuming that the world is a conspiracy against you?
I am not so delusional as to believe there is any kind of conspiracy against me, either as an individual or as a RIPE member. That does not however preclude the use of the word "conspiracy" to apply to the furthering of the agendas and interested of those who run NGOs like RIPE. Note the differentiation of "conspiracy against" vs. "conspiracy for" ? Peter
On Wednesday, Aug 20, 2003, at 17:40 Europe/Amsterdam, Peter Galbavy wrote:
Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
Are you also saying that having to have the AGM vote is a problem? In that case how would you else want to do it? Voting anytime through out the year if enough people called for a vote? That would make it more or less impossible to make or follow a budget in any reasonable way.
I do not believe that the use of the AGM is appropriate for the "big switch" being used to approve a proposed budget that included 100% of projects. The budget needs approval, but it appears to much "yes or no".
When you set up an association in any country, there are laws that tell you about things like statutes that regulate the operation of the association. There are also some constraints on what can and can't be in those statutes. In the case of the RIPE NCC the applicable law is the Dutch one. As part of defining proxy voting in the statutes, to address the issue of requiring personal attendance to the best it could be done at the time, it was a requirement that the agenda points of the AGM be published well in advance so that people considering using a proxy for voting could know what they were voting for. As a consequence, yes, the activity plan needs to be accepted or rejected as a whole. The articles of association are at http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/articles-association.html. It even includes an article on how to change the document itself. As times change, changes may be necessary, but honestly, I don't think assuming bad will from anyone's side is fair or true. Yes, like many long running organisations, things may settle into auto-pilot or even drift away from the intended purpose, but then it is the community's part in this whole thing to nudge it back into track.
There is no consultation - formal, bot mailing list chatter - on what projects are approved for inclusion into said budget approval.
Maybe, but the activity plan is always publish well in advance and since it is not approved until the AGM, the time in between publishing and approval (or rejection) is the time to make changes to it. Joao
Are you also saying that having to have the AGM vote is a problem? In that case how would you else want to do it? Voting anytime through out the year if enough people called for a vote? That would make it more or less impossible to make or follow a budget in any reasonable way.
I do not believe that the use of the AGM is appropriate for the "big switch" being used to approve a proposed budget that included 100% of projects. The budget needs approval, but it appears to much "yes or no". There is no consultation - formal, bot mailing list chatter - on what projects are approved for inclusion into said budget approval.
I don't to objections preceding the discussions of the budget decisions, on the contrary - that is the idea with this WG. However, the decision needs to be taken by the NCC membership alone, and not in a public forum. This is the AGM. Best regards, - kurtis -
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
Are you also saying that having to have the AGM vote is a problem? In that case how would you else want to do it? Voting anytime through out the year if enough people called for a vote? That would make it more or less impossible to make or follow a budget in any reasonable way.
One time per year is enough for membership feedback and determining the budget for the subsequent year. -Hank
On onsdag, aug 20, 2003, at 17:41 Europe/Stockholm, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
Are you also saying that having to have the AGM vote is a problem? In that case how would you else want to do it? Voting anytime through out the year if enough people called for a vote? That would make it more or less impossible to make or follow a budget in any reasonable way.
One time per year is enough for membership feedback and determining the budget for the subsequent year.
I agree to this. To some extend this worries me a bit tough. We are actually taking power away from the board members that are actually elected to represent us. At the same time, with the numbers of attendants that Axel posted, I am still worried over the lack of interest from the community... - kurtis -
And why is personal attendence at an AGM required to propose and vote on ongoing use of members funds ?
strictly speaking it is not. You may also vote by proxy.
I am amazed that no one has proposed any sort of online system. Or would that remove too much power from the professional bureaucrats that live off RIPE ?
Mayby you should make such a proposal ? I think it is woth discussing. Hans Petter
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 13:06, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
And why is personal attendence at an AGM required to propose and vote on ongoing use of members funds ?
strictly speaking it is not. You may also vote by proxy.
I am amazed that no one has proposed any sort of online system. Or would that remove too much power from the professional bureaucrats that live off RIPE ?
Mayby you should make such a proposal ?
LINX has been using such a system for the past two meetings. I'm sure that the technology could be shared.
I think it is woth discussing.
Hans Petter
--
On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 13:06, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
And why is personal attendence at an AGM required to propose and vote on ongoing use of members funds ?
strictly speaking it is not. You may also vote by proxy.
I am amazed that no one has proposed any sort of online system. Or would that remove too much power from the professional bureaucrats that live off RIPE ?
Mayby you should make such a proposal ?
I think it is woth discussing.
A couple of folks have asked me to expand on the legal aspects of the LINX electronic voting system. Legally, what we do is for remote voters to allocate their proxy to the chairman, who then "takes instructions" electronically to cast the vote as required. I don't know whether this would work under Dutch law, and it would also have some problems with the 2% proxy rule. My own view on the situation is that really the only voting that causes problems is the voting for the EB, and single transferable vote would be a much better system of doing this than the current arcane system which is potentially open to abuse. However, YMMV Nigel -- "This mess is so big and so deep and so tall, we cannot pick it up, there is no way at all": The Cat in the Hat.
At 28/08/2003 16:31 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote:
Legally, what we do is for remote voters to allocate their proxy to the chairman, who then "takes instructions" electronically to cast the vote as required. I don't know whether this would work under Dutch law, and it would also have some problems with the 2% proxy rule.
Like I said before, the Dutch law currently does not recognise electronic voting for the purposes of the GM. That doesn't mean that it couldn't be used for other purposes. We should however consider carefully where and why we would want to depart from the consensus principle. Having said that, we have been talking to our RIR collegues, to evaluate the electronic voting setup they are using. In the same vein, it would be interesting to get a look at the LINX setup. cheers, Axel
On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 19:51, Axel Pawlik wrote:
At 28/08/2003 16:31 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote:
Legally, what we do is for remote voters to allocate their proxy to the chairman, who then "takes instructions" electronically to cast the vote as required. I don't know whether this would work under Dutch law, and it would also have some problems with the 2% proxy rule.
Like I said before, the Dutch law currently does not recognise electronic voting for the purposes of the GM.
And like *I* said before, neither does the UK, which is why we use the scheme of allowing the electronic vote to instruct the Chairman how to exercise the proxy. I can't see why this wouldn't work in the Netherlands.
That doesn't mean that it couldn't be used for other purposes. We should however consider carefully where and why we would want to depart from the consensus principle.
We currently don't use consensus in the AGM, (which is what is under discussion).
Having said that, we have been talking to our RIR collegues, to evaluate the electronic voting setup they are using. In the same vein, it would be interesting to get a look at the LINX setup.
cheers, Axel -- Nigel Titley <nigel@titley.com>
And like *I* said before, neither does the UK, which is why we use the scheme of allowing the electronic vote to instruct the Chairman how to exercise the proxy. I can't see why this wouldn't work in the Netherlands.
I'll see what the NCC lawyers think, and report next week. Axel
At 11:15 AM 13-08-03 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Provided of course, that people really want progress, something which is increasingly in doubt judging from these lists.
It is no wonder governments are starting to get involved in internet regulation if the RIPE community is supposed to be "best practice" example for self government :-(
I think it is about time that people pull their heads out of their behind and get to work on the actual problems, or at least shut up and get out of the way so other people can do so.
where did that come from?! i think the list has been civil, with arguments for and against certain issues, but until you showed up, there had been no name calling. -hank
-- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
In message <5.1.0.14.2.20030813121508.00b28cc8@max.att.net.il>, Hank Nussbacher writes:
At 11:15 AM 13-08-03 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Provided of course, that people really want progress, something which is increasingly in doubt judging from these lists.
It is no wonder governments are starting to get involved in internet regulation if the RIPE community is supposed to be "best practice" example for self government :-(
I think it is about time that people pull their heads out of their behind and get to work on the actual problems, or at least shut up and get out of the way so other people can do so.
where did that come from?! i think the list has been civil, with arguments for and against certain issues, but until you showed up, there had been no name calling.
It came from the heart of somebody who's been in this show for longer than most of you. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
At 11:22 AM 13-08-03 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <5.1.0.14.2.20030813121508.00b28cc8@max.att.net.il>, Hank Nussbacher writes:
At 11:15 AM 13-08-03 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
Provided of course, that people really want progress, something which is increasingly in doubt judging from these lists.
It is no wonder governments are starting to get involved in internet regulation if the RIPE community is supposed to be "best practice" example for self government :-(
I think it is about time that people pull their heads out of their behind and get to work on the actual problems, or at least shut up and get out of the way so other people can do so.
where did that come from?! i think the list has been civil, with arguments for and against certain issues, but until you showed up, there had been no name calling.
It came from the heart of somebody who's been in this show for longer than most of you.
il.iucc was the 1st paying ripe member and i've been attending meetings off and on from before there was an ncc or even fees: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/meeting1-23/ripe-4.txt -hank
-- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
il.iucc was the 1st paying ripe member and i've been attending meetings off and on from before there was an ncc or even fees: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/meeting1-23/ripe-4.txt
where your attendence in the record already indicates bureaucratic bloat! did you have to pay twice to attend that meeting? :-)
It came from the heart of somebody who's been in this show for longer than most of you.
And what has that to do with anything? Frankly if you've been involved with this "show" for longer than most of us, I wouldn't be advertising the fact, considering the mess that this "show" is currently in. Regards, Neil.
<as chair> Let's all keep the discussions to issues, not persons nor measurement of manhood... - kurtis - On onsdag, aug 13, 2003, at 13:02 Europe/Stockholm, Neil J. McRae wrote:
It came from the heart of somebody who's been in this show for longer than most of you.
And what has that to do with anything? Frankly if you've been involved with this "show" for longer than most of us, I wouldn't be advertising the fact, considering the mess that this "show" is currently in.
Regards, Neil.
At 10:57 AM 13-08-03 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:12:35AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Actually you benefit from both. Less stupid mistakes in database handling (LIR) or in BGP setup (CCIE). Both have the potential to affect all of us.
based on this logic i should be funding training for everyone. and ripe ncc should provide free training along with airfare and hotel for every LIR to send their people. -Hank
One can certainly overdo things... - I think the way it is is a good compromise. People are encouraged to go to the training, and as the training location is moving around, airfare/hotel costs can be kept down.
i see your point and i hope u see mine. i would like to see something like this brought to the membership for a vote or poll of some sort. i would hope majority rules and accept the decision of the membership. -Hank
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56535 (56318)
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On onsdag, aug 13, 2003, at 12:03 Europe/Stockholm, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
i see your point and i hope u see mine. i would like to see something like this brought to the membership for a vote or poll of some sort. i would hope majority rules and accept the decision of the membership. -Han
If you have a proposal, I will make room for you in the agenda. Best regards, - kurtis -
At 11:06 PM 19-08-03 +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On onsdag, aug 13, 2003, at 12:03 Europe/Stockholm, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
i see your point and i hope u see mine. i would like to see something like this brought to the membership for a vote or poll of some sort. i would hope majority rules and accept the decision of the membership. -Han
If you have a proposal, I will make room for you in the agenda.
Is this sufficient? Proposal: LIR voting for RIPE NCC services ------------------------------------------ The RIPE NCC provides the following public services: - Registration services for Ipv4, Ipv6, inverse, ASN, and enum - Whois database - Routing Information Service project - Routing Registry Consistency project - Monthly RIPE region hostcount - DNSSEC services - Test Traffic measurement project - Training courses (LIR, DNSSEC, Routing registry) - RIPE tri-annual conference It is proposed that these services be presented by the RIPE NCC to the LIR membership on an annual basis, detailing the costs involved to run each item, the amount of manpower involved for each item and the revenue generated by each item. Based on this background information, every LIR will be asked to vote which work items they support and which work items they recommend to be downsized or terminated, or funded directly by those members participating in those specific projects. This poll of the LIR membership is to be performed no later than 4 months prior to the start of the next financial year, thereby leaving the RIPE NCC sufficient time to reorganize its staff. -Hank
Best regards,
- kurtis -
i see your point and i hope u see mine. i would like to see something like this brought to the membership for a vote or poll of some sort. i would hope majority rules and accept the decision of the membership. -Han
If you have a proposal, I will make room for you in the agenda.
Is this sufficient?
Comments below. Do you want to make a presentation as well?
Proposal: LIR voting for RIPE NCC services ------------------------------------------
The RIPE NCC provides the following public services:
- Registration services for Ipv4, Ipv6, inverse, ASN, and enum - Whois database - Routing Information Service project - Routing Registry Consistency project - Monthly RIPE region hostcount - DNSSEC services - Test Traffic measurement project - Training courses (LIR, DNSSEC, Routing registry) - RIPE tri-annual conference
It is proposed that these services be presented by the RIPE NCC to the LIR membership on an annual basis, detailing the costs involved to run each item, the amount of manpower involved for each item and the revenue generated by each item. Based on this background information, every LIR will be asked to vote which work items they support and which work items they recommend to be downsized or terminated, or funded directly by those members participating in those specific projects.
This poll of the LIR membership is to be performed no later than 4 months prior to the start of the next financial year, thereby leaving the RIPE NCC sufficient time to reorganize its staff.
I am somewhat against the "poll of the LIR membership". I think a discussion at each NCC service WG is good. For practical reasons I would suggest (and this is actually something that Axel suggested to me in Barcelona as one of the tasks of the WG) that planned and existing projects are discussed in relation with the next years budget at the autumn RIPE meeting. This would give the NCC enough time to work on Budgets based on the discussions. I guess that one problem that arises is if we are also to accept the budget at the AGM that is in association with that RIPE meeting, the time in between is very short. - kurtis -
At 12:46 PM 20-08-03 +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
i see your point and i hope u see mine. i would like to see something like this brought to the membership for a vote or poll of some sort. i would hope majority rules and accept the decision of the membership. -Han
If you have a proposal, I will make room for you in the agenda.
Is this sufficient?
Comments below. Do you want to make a presentation as well?
I don't think I will. I think this is more for a general discussion than a presentation. See below.
Proposal: LIR voting for RIPE NCC services ------------------------------------------
The RIPE NCC provides the following public services:
- Registration services for Ipv4, Ipv6, inverse, ASN, and enum - Whois database - Routing Information Service project - Routing Registry Consistency project - Monthly RIPE region hostcount - DNSSEC services - Test Traffic measurement project - Training courses (LIR, DNSSEC, Routing registry) - RIPE tri-annual conference
It is proposed that these services be presented by the RIPE NCC to the LIR membership on an annual basis, detailing the costs involved to run each item, the amount of manpower involved for each item and the revenue generated by each item. Based on this background information, every LIR will be asked to vote which work items they support and which work items they recommend to be downsized or terminated, or funded directly by those members participating in those specific projects.
This poll of the LIR membership is to be performed no later than 4 months prior to the start of the next financial year, thereby leaving the RIPE NCC sufficient time to reorganize its staff.
I am somewhat against the "poll of the LIR membership". I think a discussion at each NCC service WG is good. For practical reasons I would suggest (and this is actually something that Axel suggested to me in Barcelona as one of the tasks of the WG) that planned and existing projects are discussed in relation with the next years budget at the autumn RIPE meeting. This would give the NCC enough time to work on Budgets based on the discussions. I guess that one problem that arises is if we are also to accept the budget at the AGM that is in association with that RIPE meeting, the time in between is very short.
A discussion doesn't get a true measure of the membership. It gets the voice of the LIRs that can afford the travel, the LIRs that are closer to the venue to make travel easier, and the LIRs with a bigger voice in meetings. What is the % of LIRs that attend? In regards to the mechanics, budgets and timing - it very well may not work out for 2004 and I would be happy to see the above proposal hashed out and implemented in 2004 to affect the 2005 budget. -Hank
- kurtis -
This poll of the LIR membership is to be performed no later than 4 months prior to the start of the next financial year, thereby leaving the RIPE NCC sufficient time to reorganize its staff.
I am somewhat against the "poll of the LIR membership". I think a discussion at each NCC service WG is good. For practical reasons I would suggest (and this is actually something that Axel suggested to me in Barcelona as one of the tasks of the WG) that planned and existing projects are discussed in relation with the next years budget at the autumn RIPE meeting. This would give the NCC enough time to work on Budgets based on the discussions. I guess that one problem that arises is if we are also to accept the budget at the AGM that is in association with that RIPE meeting, the time in between is very short.
A discussion doesn't get a true measure of the membership. It gets the voice of the LIRs that can afford the travel, the LIRs that are closer to the venue to make travel easier, and the LIRs with a bigger voice in meetings. What is the % of LIRs that attend?
That is a good point, but holding the poll will also take resources. I am not against a poll as such, but in order to cast the vote, the LIRs will also need to dedicate resources to follow the development and make sure they understand what they are voting for. We also need to take into account what it means to cancel a project, and what the NCC management does with this.
In regards to the mechanics, budgets and timing - it very well may not work out for 2004 and I would be happy to see the above proposal hashed out and implemented in 2004 to affect the 2005 budget. -Hank
Seems reasonable to me. - kurtis -
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
This poll of the LIR membership is to be performed no later than 4 months prior to the start of the next financial year, thereby leaving the RIPE NCC sufficient time to reorganize its staff.
I am somewhat against the "poll of the LIR membership". I think a discussion at each NCC service WG is good. For practical reasons I would suggest (and this is actually something that Axel suggested to me in Barcelona as one of the tasks of the WG) that planned and existing projects are discussed in relation with the next years budget at the autumn RIPE meeting. This would give the NCC enough time to work on Budgets based on the discussions. I guess that one problem that arises is if we are also to accept the budget at the AGM that is in association with that RIPE meeting, the time in between is very short.
A discussion doesn't get a true measure of the membership.It gets the voice of the LIRs that can afford the travel, the LIRs that are closer to the venue to make travel easier, and the LIRs with a bigger voice in meetings.What is the % of LIRs that attend?
That is a good point, but holding the poll will also take resources. I am not against a poll as such, butin order to cast the vote, the LIRs will also need to dedicate resources to follow the development and make sure they understand what they are voting for. We also need to take into account what it means to cancel a project, and what the NCC management does with this.
I am sure the LIRs that don't want to dedicate resources to follow the development will be the same that don't subscribe to any of the lists and the same that don't attend any RIPE meetings. No one is forcing anyone to participate, but we are just giving a wider population of LIRs a chance to effect change.
In regards to the mechanics, budgets and timing - it very well may not work out for 2004 and I would be happy to see the above proposal hashed out and implemented in 2004 to affect the 2005 budget. -Hank
Seems reasonable to me.
Thanks. I hope this item finds its way onto the agenda.
- kurtis -
Hank Nussbacher
I must be missing something. How does a better trained LIR in some foreign country help me do my job better?
they make less mistakes. i.e., about the same as when they have better coffee and more sleep, both of which we should also subsidize, i guess. though, in the case of LIR training, i guess it is just making their paper-pushers better, so it does not really affect me much at all. randy
Hi, On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 03:29:44PM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote:
Gert Doering wrote:
You're confused. RIPE isn't funded in any way. RIPE is "all of us".
The funding goes to the RIPE NCC, which has offices, employees, and needs money to do the work that RIPE (we) ask them to do.
Then why do people (in RIPE / RIPC NCC) make a distinction ?
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). [..]
be optional and extra. At the moment, those of us who just want IPes and ASes have to pay for others to play with their academic toys. Why ?
Because the majority of the members hasn't voted against it.
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. [..]
On the other hand, if you just want IP addresses and AS numbers, you *can* go through an ISP (but it will reduce the number of options that you have).
No you cannot, because you are then buying from your (potential) competition.
In what way is "getting an AS number from the competition" something that's harmful for your business in the long run? 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. [..]
I am not looking to break the natural monopoly, but rather I am looking to move to a situation where the "monopoly" stuff is walled off from the optional stuff that RIPE/RIPE-NCC management (and friends) use to pay for their own pet projects. I am happy to pay on a cost basis for the "monopoly" stuff, but I don't get a choice.
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. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56535 (56318) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
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
Peter Galbavy said:
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
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.
I don't know the relevant laws that RIPE-NCC operates under (Dutch ones, I presume). But if you were looking at the equivalent UK arrangement (a company limited by guarantee) then you are entitled to go to the Registered Office and inspect the Register of Members. You then write down [*] all the names and addresses and send them all a paper letter. I wouldn't be surprised to find there's an equivalent rule. [*] Many companies will help you do this more efficiently, for example by sending a copy of the Register in the post or electronically. But I believe the legal minimum requirement is inspection at the office. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Work: <clive@demon.net> | Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 Internet Expert | Home: <clive@davros.org> | *** NOTE CHANGE *** Demon Internet | WWW: http://www.davros.org | Fax: +44 870 051 9937 Thus plc | | Mobile: +44 7973 377646
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.
The ncc-services WG was created in order to create a forum for these discussions. You have from what I remember in the past used the LIR WG mailinglist for arguing your view. What else should we do? I will be the first yo say I certainly do not think that RIPE NCC have been up to their primary task, and I must say I am still in doubts. However, I will also acknowledge that the membership have not really been paying much attention and doing their job either. In principle we are where we are because of our own fault. _WE_, the users and members of the RIPE NCC should be giving feedback to Axel and the rest of the NCC management as well as the board on where we think NCC needs to go and what should change. They can not second guess us. - kurtis -
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 10:19:44AM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote:
1. Everyone pussyfoots around the issue of RIPE =?= RIPE-NCC. As the funding for both are out of the same pockets, please STOP trying to make that distinction. If RIPE (as a natural monopoly) was classed like BT, then this practise would be seen as cross-subsidisation.
I agree. When I have to send off forms for allocations and such, I can't remember ever having said "RIPE NCC" instead of "RIPE". To most of us in the business - I think - "RIPE" is a general term for "those guys that will not give us more IP addresses unless we really, really need them." The distinction seems to be some bureaucratic necessity. I'd really rather the geeks ran this world :-)
2. RIPE, again as a natural monopoly, does NOT offer "members" the choice of opting out of the "fluffy stuff". RIPE should, IMHO, provide registry services ONLY and base its costs on that. The other hand waving, experimental, attempted standard setting stuff should be optional and extra. At the moment, those of us who just want IPes and ASes have to pay for others to play with their academic toys. Why ?
To some extend, I agree with your notion. It can be irritating, indeed, to have to pay up for something you don't really see a purpose to. However, it seems to me to be much like the whole "should our tax euros really be spent paying for research into things that do not have an obvious practical implementation (yet)?"-discussion. Whatever non-IRR-stuff RIPE is doing _may_ turn out to be the next Big Thing on the nets. It may also fade away into the distance. Somebody, however, have to pay for research into that which will pay my salary in ten years, and the companies that will probably prosper from it are a reasonable suggestion for where to send the bill.
3. The registry should be run efficiently, not just "quickly". From the reports that others have sent me off-list in the past, my suspicions are strong that there are basically too many staff at RIPE.
The great big problem with anonymous off-list mails is the fact that they are anonymous. (Not to you, I know, but to the list). If there's a problem, those who know of the problem should inform the lists.
Does anyone believe that RIPE is not a "natural monopoly" for IP registry services in Europe ?
Nope. It definitely is. However, such seems basically unavoidable given the fact that we _need_ a central office to distribute IP addresses and AS numbers. Note that RIPE is only a monopoly on IPs and ASs in the sense that Volvo is a monopoly on Volvo cars. If you want to drive a Peugeot or want to make your own ipv4-internet, seperate from the one you use now, neither Volvo nor RIPE has any say. Peter B. Juul, Uni·C (PBJ255-RIPE)
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-37/presentations/May-17-Task-... Remember this? Seems we have come full circle again.
Peter B. Juul wrote:
To some extend, I agree with your notion. It can be irritating, indeed, to have to pay up for something you don't really see a purpose to. However, it seems to me to be much like the whole "should our tax euros really be spent paying for research into things that do not have an obvious practical implementation (yet)?"-discussion. Whatever non-IRR-stuff RIPE is doing _may_ turn out to be the next Big Thing on the nets. It may also fade away into the distance. Somebody, however, have to pay for research into that which will pay my salary in ten years, and the companies that will probably prosper from it are a reasonable suggestion for where to send the bill.
How is the IETF funded ? The IETF doesn't do addressing, but seems to exist without me paying for it. In this instance, IMHO, academics should be funded by academic models and maybe by corporate sponsorship, they should not leach off "us" by the back door. BTW RIPE is not a government department funded by taxpayers, else it would be subject to audits by higher bodies, not by the collective apathy of a membership.
If there's a problem, those who know of the problem should inform the lists.
I was asked in this instance to not repeat names as one of the people was not available to approve the release of information they collected. I am happy to support people who wish to speak up.
Note that RIPE is only a monopoly on IPs and ASs in the sense that Volvo is a monopoly on Volvo cars. If you want to drive a Peugeot or want to make your own ipv4-internet, seperate from the one you use now, neither Volvo nor RIPE has any say.
Using this metaphor, RIPE has a monopoly on traffic signs and road numbers. I can build a road, but I cannot join it to the rest of the public road network without their involvement. Peter
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 03:36:19PM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote:
How is the IETF funded ? The IETF doesn't do addressing, but seems to exist without me paying for it.
Nope. You just pay in less obvious ways. Companies that sponsor their workers' trips to IETF meetings and their time doing IETF stuff grab the money when you buy their products. Which is pretty much what RIPE does, they just don't hide it behind "overhead expenses" as much.
In this instance, IMHO, academics should be funded by academic models
In the best of all worlds, yes. However, I am quite certain I am not the only one living in a country in which the government tend to find other uses for money than basic research.
and maybe by corporate sponsorship,
that's pretty much what happens now, isn't it? OK, that's not what you meant, but corporate sponsorships rarely go to those that can't point clearly to the general use the results might have.
they should not leach off "us" by the back door. BTW RIPE is not a government department funded by taxpayers, else it would be subject to audits by higher bodies, not by the collective apathy of a membership.
True. I am not saying that I find everything about the membership-ocraty great. I am just saying that I, for one, don't think research is a bad way to use some of the money we pay.
I was asked in this instance to not repeat names as one of the people was not available to approve the release of information they collected. I am happy to support people who wish to speak up.
Sure. But FOAF is bad argumentation. Especially on the net.
Using this metaphor, RIPE has a monopoly on traffic signs and road numbers. I can build a road, but I cannot join it to the rest of the public road network without their involvement.
True. You are however welcome to dig tunnels under their roads. (layer 2) NAh, this is getting silly, let's forget the analogies: Of course (and out of necessity) RIPE has a monopoly on IP space. Anything else is an academic exercise. Peter B. Juul, Uni·C (PBJ255-RIPE)
How is the IETF funded ?
My understanding is that the IETF is funded the same way as the *RIPE* is funded: - meeting participants pay a fee to cover the meeting costs, with some sponsored events added - the IETF chair Harald Alvestrand works for Cisco Systems so I assume Cisco pays for his time (just as the RIPE chair works for NIKHEF who pays for Robs time, just as I work for Tiscali who pays for my time (well if you ask my family they will probably claim I do this out of office hours so its my own time) When it comes to the RIPE NCC of the IETF (just waiting for the flames on that one...) the RFC-editor it is funded by a membership organisation (the Internet Society)
The IETF doesn't do addressing, but seems to exist without me paying for it.
You probably do indireclty; if you look at the list of Area directors and WG chairs, and even the working group members spedning time on improving the Internet you probably pay trough some product you use If you dont want to pay the RIPE NCC for the service I (or somebody else for that matter) could probably offer you Internet transit with IP address registration bundled as a service for your customers.
In this instance, IMHO, academics should be funded by academic models and maybe by corporate sponsorship, they should not leach off "us" by the back door. BTW RIPE is not a government department funded by taxpayers, else it would be subject to audits by higher bodies, not by the collective apathy of a membership.
I can agree on that principle - there will be an oportuity at the next RIPE meeting - both in the RIPE NCC services wg and in the general meeting to change the direction of the ship. -hph
On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 10:19:44AM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote:
At the moment, those of us who just want IPes and ASes have to pay for others to play with their academic toys. Why ?
Cause that's how you came to the point where you have "IPes" and "ASes". -- Carlos Morgado <chbm@cprm.net> - Internet Engineering - Phone +351 214146594 GPG key: 0x75E451E2 FP: B98B 222B F276 18C0 266B 599D 93A1 A3FB 75E4 51E2 The views expressed above do not bind my employer.
Carlos Morgado wrote:
At the moment, those of us who just want IPes and ASes have to pay for others to play with their academic toys. Why ?
Cause that's how you came to the point where you have "IPes" and "ASes".
And how was that funded ? Rehtorical question:- I know the answer; I am trying to make the point that I agree with taxes (well spent) but not with non-governmental monopolies overstating their own importance by loading themselves with stuff that should be elsewhere. Peter
Hi!
Does anyone believe that RIPE is not a "natural monopoly" for IP registry services in Europe ?
If you look at the service comparision matrix of the different RIRs (as published by RIPE), you can see that apparently all of them offer their service to anyone, not only their regional constituency. So, there *is* competition. Or did I misinterpret that matrix ? -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 17 years to go ! LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi@LF.net Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372
Does anyone believe that RIPE is not a "natural monopoly" for IP registry services in Europe ? If you look at the service comparision matrix of the different RIRs (as published by RIPE), you can see that apparently all of them offer their service to anyone, not only their regional constituency.
you're quite correct. in american, i believe that's called a cartel. randy
Hi!
Does anyone believe that RIPE is not a "natural monopoly" for IP registry services in Europe ?
If you look at the service comparision matrix of the different RIRs (as published by RIPE), you can see that apparently all of them offer their service to anyone, not only their regional constituency.
you're quite correct. in american, i believe that's called a cartel.
Is this really a cartel ? There are probably different pricing schemes and rules for each RIR ? http://www.ripe.net/rs/rir-comp-matrix-rev.html So, if someone does not like RIPE NCC services, get your IPs and ASes from one of the other RIRs ? Anything that does prohibit this ? Has anyone tried yet ? -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 17 years to go ! LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi@LF.net Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372
Kurt Jaeger wrote:
Is this really a cartel ? There are probably different pricing schemes and rules for each RIR ?
http://www.ripe.net/rs/rir-comp-matrix-rev.html
So, if someone does not like RIPE NCC services, get your IPs and ASes from one of the other RIRs ? Anything that does prohibit this ? Has anyone tried yet ?
The problem for many would be establishing billing relationships, references and banking to organisations outside their local territories. Look, it took a very very long time to convince people at RIPE (back in the mid 90's) that in the UK you DID NOT need to be registered with a "local chamber of commerce" to legally trade ... There are also doubts in my mind as to the legality of telling someone to go outside the EU (in terms of data protection and other things) as opposed to allowing someone to do so of their own *free* will. Peter
Peter Galbavy wrote:
The problem for many would be establishing billing relationships, references and banking to organisations outside their local territories.
... Apologies to my tone in that last message. You may be able to tell I get frustrated to the point of pulling my own (non existent) hair out with this particular issue. Maybe I am alone and I should go away :) I may just do this anyway - it would be the easiest solution ;-) Peter
Daniele,
I stand 100% with Daniel here. I can't speak for the others RIRs but I strongly believe the RIPE-NCC has made significant efforts in the recent past to listen to its membership, streamline procedures, and positively react to constructive criticism.
I think it a bit to early to start claiming progress. Quality have improved, but I think want a bit more before I start jumping up and down of joy.
There is more work to do, no doubt about it, but I can't see how flaming on mailing lists helps.
Agreed.
Whomever has concrete ideas: I propose we move this discussion to the ncc-services-wg list/group, that was created exactly for this purpose.
Agreed! - kurtis -
participants (23)
-
Axel Pawlik -
Bovio＠aol.com -
Carlos Friacas -
Carlos Morgado -
Clive D.W. Feather -
Gert Doering -
Hank Nussbacher -
Hans Petter Holen -
Joao Damas -
Joao Damas -
Kurt Erik Lindqvist -
Kurt Jaeger -
leo vegoda -
Mans Nilsson -
Matthias Cramer -
Neil J. McRae -
Nigel Titley -
Peter B. Juul -
Peter Galbavy -
Poul-Henning Kamp -
Randy Bush -
Serge A. Goloborodko -
Stephen Burley