CAll for action - PLEASE READ

For what it is worth, I as a >paying< RIPE member completely agree.

RIPE appears to have strayed off track, and the NCC should be the primary
role of RIPE - that we after all fund. Other activities seem to have taken
over to the detriment of the NCC functions.

I am unable to attend the next couple of meetings, but if there is a motion
to 'order' the RIPE management to re-evaluate and act on member sentiments
like this, then at least three registries I represent (all small) are in
favour.

Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Burley" <stephenb at uk.uu.net>
To: <lir-wg at ripe.net>
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 12:20 PM
Subject: CAll for action - PLEASE READ


> Hi
>     Me again I know half of you are say shut up and go away and the rest
> just do not care, well I have no where else to go and I think everyone
> should care about our community.
>     Yesterday I replied to the hostmaster email which contained nothing
but
> excuses for what has been an abysmal service on the hostmaster queue I
will
> get to that later. First I would like to say to the hostmaster in general
> those who know me and those who do not, you are the backbone of our
> community and you do a fine job...most of the time ;), and this email is
in
> no way aimed at the hostmasters, it is aimed at the management of the NCC.
>
>     RIPE fundamental truth number 1 - The NCC is there to work for the
> BENEFIT of the RIPE community at large.
>     RIPE fundamental truth number 2 - We the RIPE community do not expect
> the NCC staff to do this out of love but are charged a SERVICE fee which
> enables the NCC to staff competent, intelligent hostmasters equal to the
> task at hand.
>
>     So lets look at the facts. How many people work for the NCC 100
approx?
> How many are working as hostmasters 27? I do not see the lack of staffing,
> what I do see is a shift in priorities. All NCC staff members should be
> trained on the hostmaster desk for at least 6 months or until they are a
> competent hostmaster and can make correct decisions on requests. All NCC
> staff should spend a week every 6 months answering queries so they never
> lose their hostmaster skill. Throwing more staff at the wait queue problem
> is not the answer we have the staff at the NCC they are just not used when
> needed to help with increased work loads.
>     Question - How many times has the wait queue ever been at an
acceptable
> level 3 days max? Notice I said max not minimum, requests should not be in
> the queue longer than 3 days even this would be excessive in my view. In
the
> current climate order to revenue needs to be as short as possible and if
we
> have to build into the order process a possible 10 day delay that is
> unacceptable, we should be able to build in to our order processes a
> standard response time for all requests. And remember the wait queue list
> only measures how long before the initial response it does not account for
> the email conversation between hostmasters which could mean anything upto
a
> week or more.
>     So lets go back to the email we received giving us excuses for the
> pitiful turnaround times:
>
> 1.  Firstly, the number of tickets opened by LIRs during the first three
>   months of 2002 was approximately 6% higher than that period in 2001.
>
> I am sorry this is bad management it is obvious this increase would happen
> why was it not planned for? We work on the internet which has not stopped
> growing or had that escaped managements notice ;)
>
> 2. Secondly, the number of mergers and closures of LIRs have more than
>   doubled and their complexity has risen. We are seeing far more mergers
>   involving six or more LIRs. Fuller details will be presented at the next
>   RIPE meeting (RIPE42, 29 April - 3 May 2002 in Amsterdam).
>
> And? This in no way should have any impact on the rest of the community -
> bad management!
>
> 3.  Finally, the "criteria for an initial /20 PA allocation" policy
>   implemented in November 2001 has placed an additional load on our
>   New-LIR Co-ordinators.
>
> Now this is possibly the worst, since the NCC came up with this policy it
> would have seemed obvious to the world that this would increase the load
on
> the hostmasters apart from the NCC management as they did not planned for
> it.
>
>     They are not reasons they are excuses for bad management and far from
> excusing the hostmasters for not doing their job (because they are) if
> firmly points the finger at bad management and a lack of prioritising.
>     The NCC has the resources to get the wait queue under control they are
> not being used. When was the last time Axel approved a request? If
> management do not see the wait queue as a major problem we are in trouble.
> If management do see the problem why are all hands not on the pumps (ALL)?
I
> am not going to even start on the task force findings and ask what has
been
> done and what has not been done it just frustrates our efforts.
>
> To summarise:
> A. ALL NCC staff should be trained on the hostmaster queue.
> B. ALL NCC staff should help with excessive wait queues 3 days +.
> C. If the above is not acceptable I would remind the community of the 2
> fundamental truths stated at the start of this email.
> D. If A and B do not solve the problem then we look to changing the
workflow
> process i.e.. adding an automated approval system with proper audit
tracking
> and processes as detail by the task force or arrange another task force
paid
> by the NCC this time.
>
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/lir-wg39-ple
> naryreport/sld012.html
>
> This problem has reared its head too many times, its now time to listen to
> the community and do what they ask, you the NCC have given us your
assurance
> this would be brought under control and have failed every time. Have a
look
> at APnic, they would never have a wait queue longer than 3 days, and if
ARIN
> had the wait queue we have the Americans would be calling for legal
action.
> Why should we put up with a second rate service? It used to be RIPE was
the
> registry which showed the way it should be done, i think it may have been
> side tracked.
>
> Lets get this one solved once and for all time!!
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>
> Stephen Burley
> WorldCom EMEA Hostmaster
> SB855-RIPE
>
>