[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 22:14:23 CEST 2003
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