[address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ......
Gert Doering gert at space.net
Tue Aug 12 20:43:01 CEST 2003
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 at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299