[lir-wg] Re: "I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood. Again."

Please note that on principle I disagree with pretty much everything Jim
Fleming waffles about.

Jim, please do not use my opinions to expound your own.

Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming at ameritech.net>
To: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy at knowtion.net>; "Gert Doering"
<gert at space.net>
Cc: "Lars Marowsky-Bree" <lars at marowsky-bree.de>; "Local IR Working Group"
<lir-wg at ripe.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 1:31 PM
Subject: "I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood.
Again."


> From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy at knowtion.net>
> "I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood.
Again."
> ====
>
> When money is mentioned, people seem to **assume** that the people who
mention money are
> against spending it. What really may be happening is that people are
against **hiding** the costs,
> or denying the costs, or claiming someone is in this "for the good of the
community", when it is very
> clear that year after year, they are in it for the money and the good
times and the travel and whatever
> perks they can get from doing almost nothing but saying to a large group
of other people, "here, you
> take 10, you take 20, 30 goes there, and 40 goes over there." It is hard
for people to imagine that the
> process of **selling uniqueness** (or leasing it), has value.
>
> As people can see, it now takes about 30 people to do what one person can
do.
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> That multiplies the costs by a factor of 30. Someone has to pay for that.
There is no free lunch.
>
> This is a classic Multi-Level-Marketing (MLM) structure. The 30 people are
not really required, it is
> really a few people surrounded by others, working to get into the game, to
find their place in the pyramid.
> Labor unions also have the same pattern or structure. Workers may ask,
"What does my $5 per month do ?",
> answer, "It pays to have someone collect the $5". Some may have a hard
time seeing the **value** if it
> is reduced to a simple circular situation. If enough people and money are
added to the structure, then it
> all becomes much harder to sort out, and reduce to the simple reality that
those at the top of the structures
> have a large vested interest in making sure the structure remains in place
and that all of the people in the
> lower levels of the structure keep it in place. It costs time and money to
keep it in place. People at the top
> of the structure have to make sure that not too much money flows to the
top because then it would become
> too obvious what is going on. Instead, they have to smooth over the lower
levels and short-circuit the cash-flow
> and customers to keep the MLM structure expanding, while maintaining the
top with a percentage going to
> the house. If one wants to "play" with a similar structure, they can learn
to operate a .CASINO.
> http://casinoempire.sierra.com/casino.htm
>
> > http://www.arin.net/library/minutes/bot/bot04082002.html
> > ARIN Board of Trustees Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada
> > April 8, 2002
> >
> > called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. MDT
> > ...adjourn the meeting at 5:09 p.m. MDT
>
> All you have to do is get some /8s and you can lease them...RIPE is only
one small Registry...
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Galbavy" <peter.galbavy at knowtion.net>
> To: "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net>
> Cc: "Lars Marowsky-Bree" <lars at marowsky-bree.de>; "Local IR Working Group"
<lir-wg at ripe.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 4:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ?
>
>
> > > Well - they did.  The mandate on the NCC was "make sure that LIRs are
> > > properly trained so they can do their job well" (which costs quite
some
> > > money).  Usually this is mainly paid by the "new LIR fees" - which is
> > > a reasonable approach - but this year there were much less new LIRs
> > > than planned in the budget, so there was a net loss.
> >
> > I wholeheartedly agree with training being a core activity. It reduces
the
> > workload in the long term by not requiring quite so much handholding
later.
> > I am not against spending money - maybe I have been misunderstood.
Again.
> >
> > > I think it's reasonable that the NCC plans with higher fees to ensure
that
> > > they do not run the risk of going bankrupt - which would be a
> > catastrophe -
> > > or that they have to significantly reduce expenses like "training" -
which
> > > is something the LIR community has been explicitely asking for.
> >
> > OK. I have *not* had time since recieving the invoice yesterday to go
and
> > read every budget report and annual report issued in 2002. I will. I
cannot
> > comment on this directly, but I will go and look at how the costs break
down
> > and formulate more informed opinions shortly. In the meanwhile I have
asked
> > (too late for bureaucrats probably, but I must try) to be invoiced
> > quarterly, as this outrageous increase screws my cashflow for the next
year.
> > I am *not* in this for business or profit - like I have said I am
supporting
> > a leftover, legacy network and not-quite breaking even.
> >
> > > (Of course the "training" thing is just an example - but I still feel
> > > they are doing a reasonable job, and the costs are still in the range
> > > that they don't overload a commercial ISP's budget.  For a
non-commercial
> > > network and non-educational network, one has to face the question "is
it
> > > necessary to be a LIR?")
> >
> > For the last question, and for my circumstances, yes. There is not other
way
> > to get independent access to AS number(s) and address space. I have been
> > royally screwed in the past (in different jobs, mind) by ISPs using the
PA
> > renumbering 'costs' to force retention of otherwise un-economic
business. In
> > terms of resilience - if that is your chosen route - BGP is essential,
even
> > if at the moment my specific circumstances dictate that I only have one
> > puclic upstream (my private peering is my own affair). Relying on a
> > 'foreign' LIR to issue and maintain an as-num or other RIPE objects is
too
> > risky.
> >
> > So, in my opinion, the RIPE fees have been worth the reduction of risk.
> > Maybe now it is changing. I will be looking into the process of mergers
and
> > acquisitions through RIPE to see if there is a goal I can pursue to
become
> > an ex-LIR (much to the relief of some I suspect).
> >
> > Peter
> >
>
>