Current wait times

Stephen Burley
WorldCom EMEA Hostmaster
SB855-RIPE


>
> Dear LIRs,
>
> Be assured that we take this matter very seriously and we are
> doing all we can to improve the situation.
>
> All suggestions made by the "17th May Task Force" and agreed by
> the LIR WG were implemented

    No they where not, the most major change suggested was the automated
approval robot, which is not as bad as it sounds and was agreed at the
lir-working group with a few caveats. It was modified with the task force
before the plenary and represented threre, after a few comments we recieved
consensus to implement ALL the task force findings, what happened after this
point is something which still astounds me.
    Firstly nothing was said about the robot at the next ripe meeting in
fact it was as if the proposal never even existed. On a closed mailing list
(the task force list) i asked for an update on the robots implementation to
which we had a reply telling us a detailed report would be sent to the list
soon by Axel. When it arrived i was astonished to read that due to concernes
raised by people to Axel in the COFFEE break and the LUNCH break, HE, Axel,
made the desicion based on these concerns to not implement the robot. So
Axel single handedly overrode the whole community by listening the peoples
comments in the breaks. Which means that we do not need meetings to gain
concensus just have one long coffee break with the odd lunch break to decide
RIPE NCC policy. Needless to say the concerns that where listed where not
founded and they where not even discussed with the task force.

(since May 2001) and resulted in a
> significantly lower response time as you can see on the yearly
> Hostmaster Waitqueue graph (last graph on the following page):
>
>
http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/mem-services/registration/rttqueue/rttwaitqueue.
html
>
> Due to market developments (i.e. increase of mergers, take overs,
> closures) and unforeseen issues with the implementation of the new

I am sorry but this is still not a fair excuse, why should the NCC be
involved in this to a great extent. We suffer because of none request
related issues.


> "Minimum Allocation Criteria" policy in November 2001 we experienced
> an unexpected high work load since mid January 2002 (as described in
> our previous mail).

You did not describe why you failed to see what was obvious to the rest of
the world.



 These factors appeared unfortunately at the same
> time.
>
> We are currently preparing a detailed report for you to be presented
> at the RIPE 42 Meeting. However, we are going to send a preliminary
> summary early next week to this list.

I would like to see the detailed report on the list first PP presentations
tend to cloud issues.


>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Mirjam Kuehne
> External Relations
> RIPE NCC