[lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
Kurt Erik Lindqvist kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Thu Nov 28 17:23:16 CET 2002
> I don't think this is necessary. From my experience, voicing things on > the lir-wg mailing list actually *does* have an effect - but it has to > be somewhat popular. There was one voice (Stephen Burley) complaining > about "money wasted on useless projects", but he did not get any > support > from anyone else, while a number of people voiced "we think that these > things are indeed useful!", so nothing changed. Speaking of.... I personally do feel that quite a lot of the "special projects" that RIPE does is essential. However, I think that providing timely and adequate registration services is more urgent. RIPE NCC is increasing the fees, loosing customers and still not IMHO doing a good job. I would be more than happy to pay 50% more if that would give me better registration services. I am not convinced that is the case. For at least a year we have been hearing that this would improve. We are given statistics this is the case. As a new LIR I must say that if this is the improvement, I am glad I wasn't a registry before.... > > Well - they did. The mandate on the NCC was "make sure that LIRs are > properly trained so they can do their job well" (which costs quite some > money). Usually this is mainly paid by the "new LIR fees" - which is > a reasonable approach - but this year there were much less new LIRs > than planned in the budget, so there was a net loss The burst of the dot.com bubble is no news. It was there a year ago. Businesses adopted and cut back to cope with it. Some did better, some did worse. RIPE NCC seems to belong in the later category. If this would have been a Ltd, the share holders would be asking if the management and accountants was a sleep. > I think it's reasonable that the NCC plans with higher fees to ensure > that > they do not run the risk of going bankrupt - which would be a > catastrophe - Agreed. > or that they have to significantly reduce expenses like "training" - > which > is something the LIR community has been explicitely asking for. Agreed - but! We and the NCC need to realize that money is not free flowing. Raising the fees might be ok to solve a urgent problem of solvency but they also need to point at what they have done to reduce cost and regain financial control. Just like any other company have to do to their shareholders. If we loose even more new LIRs next year, do we just continue to raise? Where is the pain level? > (Of course the "training" thing is just an example - but I still feel > they are doing a reasonable job, and the costs are still in the range > that they don't overload a commercial ISP's budget. For a > non-commercial > network and non-educational network, one has to face the question "is > it > necessary to be a LIR?") > It''s not that simple. The RIRs have defacto monopolies. There is nowhere else to go. And I am not arguing it should be. Best regards, - kurtis -
[ lir-wg Archives ]