Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <]

On onsdag, dec 4, 2002, at 09:51 Europe/Stockholm, Bovio@localhost wrote:

> In a message dated 12/4/02 5:58:30 AM Romance Standard Time, 
> kurtis@localhost writes:
>
> Kurtis,
>
> Ok, so for next year we will see a staff reduction or a
> "re-prioritistion"?
>
>
>
> As I wrote earlier we expect the survey to tell us what the membership 
> at large expects the RIPE-NCC to do. If the members indicate that they 
> are only intrested in core activities some restructuring will be 
> required. I personally doubt that this will be the case and I do not 
> think a staff reduction will be needed.
Ok. Notice that this was actually a question on which way you think it 
will go. I don't understand how you could get "continuing as today" and 
"same fees and fee structure" to work together.

> I am now playing the devils advocate so don't take this literal - the
> RIPE NCCs number one focus is to provide adequate registration
> services. Anything else is pure bonus.
>
>
>
> The RIPE-NCC was never meant to be "only" about registration services. 
> At any rate I do not believe the RIPE database can be considered  "a 
> bonus" anyway.
I agree with you on the "not only" registration services - but at some 
point we need to ask us what the NCC should focus on. I can see a 
number of side activities that will prove useful, but still the most 
useful services are the registration services, and what do we do if 
these do not function well?

I have a PI address space form that I sent it and that apparently had a 
problem. That was (I think)I two months ago. Still no reply from the 
NCC. While registering the new LIR I had a problem with the invoicing 
and tried to get in contact with RIPE NCCs billing group, I was several 
times on the phone told that none of them had come to the office at 
times when I would have expected everyone to be at work since long 
back. I was told there was a week waiting queue on billing issues.

I don't want to point fingers, at least this is not my intention - and 
there might be very valid reasons for everything. But here lays a part 
of the problem. It's very hard to have a view of the work done by the 
NCC without this being indirectly seen as criticism of particular 
persons of the NCC.


But I have agreed with Hans-Petter to try and make a presentation for 
the next LIR-WG of my experiences and what I think, so I will and try 
to be quite until then,


- kurtis -