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

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