[ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ......
Gert Doering gert at space.net
Tue Aug 12 11:36:01 CEST 2003
Hi, On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 10:19:44AM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote: > 1. Everyone pussyfoots around the issue of RIPE =?= RIPE-NCC. As the funding > for both are out of the same pockets, please STOP trying to make that > distinction. If RIPE (as a natural monopoly) was classed like BT, then this > practise would be seen as cross-subsidisation. 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. [..] > 2. RIPE, again as a natural monopoly, does NOT offer "members" the choice of > opting out of the "fluffy stuff". RIPE should, IMHO, provide registry > services ONLY and base its costs on that. The other hand waving, > experimental, attempted standard setting stuff should 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. [..] > Does anyone believe that RIPE is not a "natural monopoly" for IP registry > services in Europe ? If it isn't, as I predicate it is, then I get choice > and can take my business elsewhere. Going to an "ISP" is not the choice I > can make, so don't try that one. It is a natural monopoly in the way that you can't go elsewhere if you want RIPE member services. But then, how else do you want to do hierarchical distribution of a limited resource? 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). 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