This means that the IP-community of Europe will probably have a zero influence on the network, that are supposed to serve our community. And that the CPMU totally ignores the skills of the Ripe community.
This will only be true if none of the Ripe member networks paticipate in the IP pilot.
We (ie JANET/JIPS) intend to participate in the EMPB IP pilot. The reason we're doing it is that we believe it's important to have high-quality networks available for our users, and piloting is a necessary part of the quality-assurance procedure. This attitude is no different to our attitude to Ebone '92 -- we've been happy to participate, and be active in the management and operational work to get things sorted out. It's been a rewarding experience for us, our users, and (I'd suggest) other members of the Ebone consortium. I find it hard to see much difference between doing this and doing the same for EMPB -- in both cases we see a reward for work invested. I'd hope other networks connecting to EMPB participate in the pilot as well. Otherwise there won't be much to pilot :-)
We have to pay twice, as the skills of the coumunity are not used, and we have to pay the consultants on our taxes/ charges.
You might have to pay for the consultants by your taxes if your organisation is part of COSINE, but NOT in charges for the EMPB.
It seems to me that it's a bit dangerous to start suggesting that one IP network is a burden on the taxpayer, whilst another isn't. As Bruce points out, EMPB charges aren't. Even a cursory inspection suggests that substantial bits of the Ebone '92 infrastructure are publically funded, at least originally. Nothing particularly wrong with that -- they've been put to good use -- but it seems fairly silly to start this particular line of discussion at this particular time. Bob Day