[lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
Pim van Pelt
Wed Dec 4 10:10:35 CET 2002
Peter, | With the greatest respect, most members *categorically* believe that | registration is the "only" thing the RIPE-NCC is about and that any | non-registration activities are either undertaken as a direct consequence of | a requirement to fulfill registration services or 'other'. 'Other' is my | ongoing problem. I cannot accept that you say 'most members ..', because from where I'm sitting, there's plenty of voices speaking for training, education, social and formal engineering (eg, meetings). | BTW I have never been asked, as a member of about 4 years, to take part in a | member survey. Is this another quiet activity 'sneaked' out as a RIPE | document once a year ? I hardly think it is sneaked out. You said yourself that you are not able (or was not) to participate in the debates and that you expect the membership at large to act in your best interrest. Now it turns out that you categorically believe that the RIPE NCC should only run registration services. This means that I will not be able to act in your best interrest, because I happen to believe that the RIPE community benefits largely by the 'Other' stuff that the NCC does. I will probably be acting against your best interrest by stimulating 'more than just a registry' behavior. Permit me to fuel your hatred some more: I was recently approached by the RIPE NCC's board to participate in a discussion round with a KPMG research individual and as a matter of fact, we spoke exactly about what 'Other' should be. I voiced my opinion for training, education and spreading of new technologies topdown, such as IPv6 (of which I am an advocate). Suffice to say that not every (and I doubt even 'most') member thinks the same on what the RIPE NCC should be doing. Kind regards, Pim -- __________________ Met vriendelijke groet, /\ ___/ Pim van Pelt /- \ _/ Business Internet Trends BV PBVP1-RIPE /--- \/ __________________
[ lir-wg Archive ]