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

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.

I agree. When I have to send off forms for allocations and such, I can't 
remember ever having said "RIPE NCC" instead of "RIPE". To most of us in
the business - I think - "RIPE" is a general term for "those guys that
will not give us more IP addresses unless we really, really need them."

The distinction seems to be some bureaucratic necessity. I'd really
rather the geeks ran this world :-)

> 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 ?

To some extend, I agree with your notion.  It can be irritating, indeed, to 
have to pay up for something you don't really see a purpose to.  However, 
it seems to me to be much like the whole "should our tax euros really be 
spent paying for research into things that do not have an obvious practical 
implementation (yet)?"-discussion.  Whatever non-IRR-stuff RIPE is doing 
_may_ turn out to be the next Big Thing on the nets. It may also fade away 
into the distance. Somebody, however, have to pay for research into that
which will pay my salary in ten years, and the companies that will
probably prosper from it are a reasonable suggestion for where to send
the bill.

> 3. The registry should be run efficiently, not just "quickly". From the
> reports that others have sent me off-list in the past, my suspicions are
> strong that there are basically too many staff at RIPE. 

The great big problem with anonymous off-list mails is the fact that
they are anonymous. (Not to you, I know, but to the list).

If there's a problem, those who know of the problem should inform the
lists.

> Does anyone believe that RIPE is not a "natural monopoly" for IP registry
> services in Europe ?

Nope. It definitely is. However, such seems basically unavoidable given
the fact that we _need_ a central office to distribute IP addresses and
AS numbers.

Note that RIPE is only a monopoly on IPs and ASs in the sense that
Volvo is a monopoly on Volvo cars. If you want to drive a Peugeot or
want to make your own ipv4-internet, seperate from the one you use now,
neither Volvo nor RIPE has any say.

Peter B. Juul, 
Uni·C (PBJ255-RIPE)