[ripe-167] Impressions brought from Moscow meeting

Andrew, sorry, but I want to make only two remarks. It seems to me,
that it would be better for me to stop participating in this
discussion as far as: 
     I'm an advocate of goverment regulation;
     I want to form "Russian Union" in Internet 
     etc. etc.
I hope my colleagues will continue.

Thus:

1) There do exists some part of RIPE community (ISPs from Russia,
Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine - about 45) that is served by RosNIIROS.
Let's fix that it's not interesting for me _why_ do they like
such a scheme. I'm interested now only to  increase the quality of service
for them. Just now I cannot do it because I'd be forced to rise
tariffs to have some more staff, equipment, etc. - now I just "channelize"
money to RIPE NCC. The problem can be solved within existing RIPE NCC
tariffs only under some status, and RIPE office is quite good.

2) The problem of RIR is much more complicated and needs further
discussion. As far as you speak about ripe-167+ document, I understand
that you are not rejecting this project at all. I hope you are informed
that working group on this problem already exists and prepares preliminary
documents (and you are welcome of course, as well as any other person
interested in the problem under consideration). By the way, I'm not the
member of this WG, I'm only the consultant. Some document (say, ripe-167+)
will be the result of this work.

As you can notice, these items follow two stages described in ripe-167.
I still think that this document is reasonable as far as it reflects
reality, though the argumentation is not fully adequate. 

It seems to me, that the above text doesn't contrdict your position
or I don't understand anything.

Regards,
Alexei Platonov


According to Andrew Stesin:
> On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Alexei Platonov wrote:
> 
> > > 	How about my proposal of creating a ripe-167+ document,
> > > 	reviewed, revised, more solid and with more representative
> > > 	authorship?
> > 
> > Yes, I like it. I want only to mention that this is just what we
> > decided in Moscow (only ripe-167+ was not mentioned): to establish
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 	It was (by me at least) though went unnoticed by the majority.
> 
> > RIPE office and continue to work on documents on RIR within working
> > group which is open to all interested parties. By the way, the
> > working group has already prepared some documents and is ready
> > to submit them for starting discussion.
> > 
> > The only thing I insist: we need to begin _practical_ work, including
>                           ^^^^
> 	Would you please mind clarifying in details: who "you" (see "we" above)
> 	are?
> 
> > the RIPE NCC office - otherwise nothing will be done. The discussion
> > that we participate in can last till infinity.
> 
> 	Yes, "infinity" -- as long as you doesn't provide us with
> 
> 	a) clear written definition of the planned actions and the scope of
> 	   the interested community (that's what my speech on
> 	   ripe-167+ is about);
> 	b) solid clarification for the consensus of community mentioned in
> 	   "a)".
> 
> > And you should take into consideration that the office works _de facto_
> > the last 1,5 years,
> 
> 	"RosNIIROS" != "RIPE office" so far.  RIPE NCC and RosNIIROS
> 	are different organisations.  RosNIIROS may (to some extend)
> 	pretend on the role of Russian National registry, that's
> 	another story.
> 
> > you know about it.
> 
> 	No I don't know *anything* "just because" or "by default".
> 
> > I have to do something with the
> > community that already gets service through RosNIIROS,
> 
> 	Why do you think you *have to* do something?  What's wrong
> 	with current state of affairs?  Why something should be
> 	changed? Why attempts to expand the scope of RosNIIROS IR
> 	to adjucent countries? this last question is the most
> 	interesting and important for me.
> 
> > either to stop it immediately (quality of service is falling due
> > to unregulated scheme, both financial and organizational)
> 
> 	Ok, am I understabding correctly, that without getting
> 	a "RIPE NCC" label on the frontdoor RosNIIROS can't increase
> 	the quality of service it provides? and this is the one and
> 	only real problem?
> 
> 	Why then?
> 
> 	And even if "yes" and solid arguments are present (which
> 	ones?) -- what is ripe-167 all about then?
> 
> > or to move forward.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Alexei Platonov
> > 
> 
> Best regards,
> Andrew Stesin
> 
> nic-hdl: ST73-RIPE
> 
> 
>