SLA's needed !!! (Was: Re: ASN wait time)

>service. So, if a LIR decides to have an SLA-bound agreement, it will pay N
>times more (N may be even 10 or 20) than a standard contribution fee, but
>will get guaranteed service. If RIPE NCC fails to provide service to those
>registries, they would pay penalties, which would be automatically deduced
>from the LIR contribution fee.
>
>All other registries should pay normal fees and get normal class of service
>(not SLA bound, no penalties for delays etc.).

I't doesn't sound too good, because in that model you can use money
to obtain better service. So that model is going to hurt the LIR's who are
not willing or able to pay. I know my employer can easily afford to pay
to get the service we want, but somehow it doesn't sound right when
we are talking about a resource (IP addr. space) what should be
divided among users as equally as possible.
But, if every LIR would agree to pay a small amount if service is
running smoothly then we are all at the same level. And it doesn't
require an application to keep track who has what SLA.

So far I haven't hear a fact that the long delays are caused by lack
of human resources. It has beeing an assumption so far.
If it really is a manpower problem how many people we do need
more and how much money it takes to hire and train them?

BTW, I have handled the problem with queues so that we do not make
any exact promices to our customers that they can have numbers an a given
date. More or less we explain that there is a process behind all this and it is
there because of a reason. 99% of them are happy with that. Problems usually
start when too optimistic promices are beeing made (by someone not familiar
with the process).

Jorma