[ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ......
Hans Petter Holen hpholen at tiscali.no
Wed Aug 13 01:43:07 CEST 2003
> How is the IETF funded ? My understanding is that the IETF is funded the same way as the *RIPE* is funded: - meeting participants pay a fee to cover the meeting costs, with some sponsored events added - the IETF chair Harald Alvestrand works for Cisco Systems so I assume Cisco pays for his time (just as the RIPE chair works for NIKHEF who pays for Robs time, just as I work for Tiscali who pays for my time (well if you ask my family they will probably claim I do this out of office hours so its my own time) When it comes to the RIPE NCC of the IETF (just waiting for the flames on that one...) the RFC-editor it is funded by a membership organisation (the Internet Society) > The IETF doesn't do addressing, but seems to exist > without me paying for it. You probably do indireclty; if you look at the list of Area directors and WG chairs, and even the working group members spedning time on improving the Internet you probably pay trough some product you use If you dont want to pay the RIPE NCC for the service I (or somebody else for that matter) could probably offer you Internet transit with IP address registration bundled as a service for your customers. > In this instance, IMHO, academics should be funded > by academic models and maybe by corporate sponsorship, they should not leach > off "us" by the back door. BTW RIPE is not a government department funded by > taxpayers, else it would be subject to audits by higher bodies, not by the > collective apathy of a membership. I can agree on that principle - there will be an oportuity at the next RIPE meeting - both in the RIPE NCC services wg and in the general meeting to change the direction of the ship. -hph