[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] The Future of the RIPE Database Proxy Service

On 11/03/2013 14:27, Alex Le Heux wrote:
> Are we seriously having a multi-month discussion involving numerous
> emails from the CEO of the RIPE NCC about a service that has *four*
> active users?

If this were a commercial organisation and if it were my choice, I would
pull the plug tomorrow.  Actually, I would have pulled it years ago because
I have a strong dislike for underused fossils, particularly those which
actively cost time and resources to maintain.  But it's not a commercial
organisation - it's a monopoly whose purpose is to serve a bunch of people
what they want to be served on the basis of general bottom-up consensus,
and the rules are different.

Unfortunately, it seems there was a top-down cockup which spilled into
nanog-l and caused a small amount of froth to fly.  When this happens, it's
sensible to put your hand up and confess that yes, there was a cockup and
there were no bad intentions and that as a matter of good will to the
community, whatever was done would be undone.  Otherwise, it will be
remembered years later that the RIPE NCC did all of this mean, bad and
horrible stuff to the community once upon a time and they're a monopolistic
power hungry bunch, not answerable to the community and yadda-yadda-yadda.
 Fortunately, this reaction is as avoidable as it is predictable.

The RIPE NCC have done the right thing by going back to their membership
and asking them for consensus on a policy.  I put forward a particular
opinion on the basis that it's probably best right now to go back to the
original configuration (i.e. contract/free in this case) and leave things
settle down for a while so that people realise that the RIPE NCC is not the
enemy.

Some time down the road, I'd probably be quite supportive of the idea of
asking the RIPE NCC to approach the 4 existing users of the service and ask
them if there was any other way that their requirements could be
facilitated which involved lower overhead/cost.  I.e. engagement with user
community, followed by general consensus, followed by action which has
broad support from constituency.

Otherwise I agree that this is a storm in a teacup which merits only a tiny
fraction of the amount of attention it's getting.

How are you enjoying consensus from the other side, then?  :-D

Nick