CAll for action - PLEASE READ

On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Per Lundberg wrote:

> Hi Stephen et al,
>
> I fully support your view and the items you pointed out, and are quite
> curious on the NCC's reply.



Agree!!


>
> /Per
>
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002, Stephen Burley wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >     Me again I know half of you are say shut up and go away and the rest
> > just do not care, well I have no where else to go and I think everyone
> > should care about our community.
> >     Yesterday I replied to the hostmaster email which contained nothing but
> > excuses for what has been an abysmal service on the hostmaster queue I will
> > get to that later. First I would like to say to the hostmaster in general
> > those who know me and those who do not, you are the backbone of our
> > community and you do a fine job...most of the time ;), and this email is in
> > no way aimed at the hostmasters, it is aimed at the management of the NCC.
> >
> >     RIPE fundamental truth number 1 - The NCC is there to work for the
> > BENEFIT of the RIPE community at large.
> >     RIPE fundamental truth number 2 - We the RIPE community do not expect
> > the NCC staff to do this out of love but are charged a SERVICE fee which
> > enables the NCC to staff competent, intelligent hostmasters equal to the
> > task at hand.
> >
> >     So lets look at the facts. How many people work for the NCC 100 approx?
> > How many are working as hostmasters 27? I do not see the lack of staffing,
> > what I do see is a shift in priorities. All NCC staff members should be
> > trained on the hostmaster desk for at least 6 months or until they are a
> > competent hostmaster and can make correct decisions on requests. All NCC
> > staff should spend a week every 6 months answering queries so they never
> > lose their hostmaster skill. Throwing more staff at the wait queue problem
> > is not the answer we have the staff at the NCC they are just not used when
> > needed to help with increased work loads.
> >     Question - How many times has the wait queue ever been at an acceptable
> > level 3 days max? Notice I said max not minimum, requests should not be in
> > the queue longer than 3 days even this would be excessive in my view. In the
> > current climate order to revenue needs to be as short as possible and if we
> > have to build into the order process a possible 10 day delay that is
> > unacceptable, we should be able to build in to our order processes a
> > standard response time for all requests. And remember the wait queue list
> > only measures how long before the initial response it does not account for
> > the email conversation between hostmasters which could mean anything upto a
> > week or more.
> >     So lets go back to the email we received giving us excuses for the
> > pitiful turnaround times:
> >
> > 1.  Firstly, the number of tickets opened by LIRs during the first three
> >   months of 2002 was approximately 6% higher than that period in 2001.
> >
> > I am sorry this is bad management it is obvious this increase would happen
> > why was it not planned for? We work on the internet which has not stopped
> > growing or had that escaped managements notice ;)
> >
> > 2. Secondly, the number of mergers and closures of LIRs have more than
> >   doubled and their complexity has risen. We are seeing far more mergers
> >   involving six or more LIRs. Fuller details will be presented at the next
> >   RIPE meeting (RIPE42, 29 April - 3 May 2002 in Amsterdam).
> >
> > And? This in no way should have any impact on the rest of the community -
> > bad management!
> >
> > 3.  Finally, the "criteria for an initial /20 PA allocation" policy
> >   implemented in November 2001 has placed an additional load on our
> >   New-LIR Co-ordinators.
> >
> > Now this is possibly the worst, since the NCC came up with this policy it
> > would have seemed obvious to the world that this would increase the load on
> > the hostmasters apart from the NCC management as they did not planned for
> > it.
> >
> >     They are not reasons they are excuses for bad management and far from
> > excusing the hostmasters for not doing their job (because they are) if
> > firmly points the finger at bad management and a lack of prioritising.
> >     The NCC has the resources to get the wait queue under control they are
> > not being used. When was the last time Axel approved a request? If
> > management do not see the wait queue as a major problem we are in trouble.
> > If management do see the problem why are all hands not on the pumps (ALL)? I
> > am not going to even start on the task force findings and ask what has been
> > done and what has not been done it just frustrates our efforts.
> >
> > To summarise:
> > A. ALL NCC staff should be trained on the hostmaster queue.
> > B. ALL NCC staff should help with excessive wait queues 3 days +.
> > C. If the above is not acceptable I would remind the community of the 2
> > fundamental truths stated at the start of this email.
> > D. If A and B do not solve the problem then we look to changing the workflow
> > process i.e.. adding an automated approval system with proper audit tracking
> > and processes as detail by the task force or arrange another task force paid
> > by the NCC this time.
> > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/lir-wg39-ple
> > naryreport/sld012.html
> >
> > This problem has reared its head too many times, its now time to listen to
> > the community and do what they ask, you the NCC have given us your assurance
> > this would be brought under control and have failed every time. Have a look
> > at APnic, they would never have a wait queue longer than 3 days, and if ARIN
> > had the wait queue we have the Americans would be calling for legal action.
> > Why should we put up with a second rate service? It used to be RIPE was the
> > registry which showed the way it should be done, i think it may have been
> > side tracked.
> >
> > Lets get this one solved once and for all time!!
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Stephen Burley
> > WorldCom EMEA Hostmaster
> > SB855-RIPE
> >
> >
>
>

-- 

Mvh

	/Fredrik

-------------------------------------------------------
KTHNOC, KTH, S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden +46 8 790 65 17
-------------------------------------------------------