[ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ......
Peter Galbavy peter.galbavy at knowtion.net
Tue Aug 12 16:29:44 CEST 2003
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 ? >> 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. 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. This is getting recursive. > 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). No you cannot, because you are then buying from your (potential) competition. RIPE/RIPE-NCC is supposed to be neutral, but is using that neutrality to assist in its own perpetualtion of the things I am complaining about. 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. Peter Peter