[ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ......

Gert Doering wrote:
> 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).

I know it is not an English acronym, but perhaps someone could translate
what RIPE stands for ? It is not "the European ISP club" is it ? It is the
European IP coordination function (AFAICR). I dislike people pretending that
RIPE-NCC membership fees do not fund RIPE activities. Else we would only see
costs associated with running a registry in the *RIPE-NCC* annual report.

>> 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.

But that is / was your job ? If you have close to 100% of your working day
dedicated to RIPE / regulatory affairs / whatever, then getting involved is
easy. People in(/friends with people in) RIPE/RIPE-NCC are basically in
control. Most members do not even have anyone who reads this stuff. Hence my
comment about apathy.

>From reading the docs a few months ago, I need to find 5% of the membership
to agree to any proposal I may make to be put before a RIPE annual meeting
(for example to propose the RIPE/RIPE-NCC immediately cease all non-registry
related activities and to begin a program of rationalisation that reflects
the needs of the industry).

I have NO communication path to approach this notional 5% as I do not have
access to a membership list, and I dislike spamming folks anyway. Not all
members are on an open mailing list (AFAIK) - or rather not all those who
are in a position to vote on behalf oif their company.

Without knowing who are members, and how many are "5%" I cannot try to put
forward a democratic proposal of the sort above. On the other hand, the
executive board can put forward proposals unconditionally - or have I
remembered wrong ?

> In what way is "getting an AS number from the competition" something
> that's harmful for your business in the long run?

AS is OK - it is for the lifetime of the assignment, except the maintainer
object is required for changes and last time I asked, new maintainer objects
are only for members.

> 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.

PI is "wasteful" and not guarenteed (for some value of that word) routeable.
PA is owned by the upstream, and also makes most multihoming impossible. I
have pre-PI/PA space I can use for my own self, but some of this is not
actually just about my specific case.

> 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.

I oppose the whole concept of having a plan, not the plan. If the sole
activity was registry services, there would be no need for a plan.

Peter