Questionnaire Clarifications

[Daniel Karrenberg <]

Dear colleagues,

first of all let me apologise for the copies of questionnaire
acknowledgements sent to the lists.  This was a programming error on my
part which I will try to avoid in the future.  I will also send such
questionnaires to an non-replyable address in order to prevent spurious
replies to the lists.  I also apologise to those receiveing two copies
of ithis message.  There are compelling technical reasons why we cannot
do better on this front.  MH users may want to check out
ftp://ftp.ripe.net/tools/rmdupmail.shar which lets you remove
duplicate messages from folders easily.

It has been brought to my attention that some people consider the
questionnaire to be irrevlevant to those who have no interest in
SIRCE whatsoever. The contrary is true. If you respond without any
statement on SIRCE this is a statement too. Of course we would like
you to say that you are satisfied with our current services, but
you do not have to if you are not ;-).

Lajos Balint has suggested that a statement be included for those
who consider it improper to commit a contribution at this time because
that may be regarded as influencing the TERENA selection process on 
the CfP. If this prevents people from reacting, please fee free to
use the questionnaire below which includes such a statement. If you 
have already reacted but would like to include this statement, please
react again. We will disregard your first response.

Finally I'd like to thank the 41 people who responded already.
I can assure you that each reply helps us and motivates us
too.

Daniel


%START  please leave this line in and send to auto-quest@localhost

%FORM [quest9602]

	Please delete the statements below which you do *not* support and
	leave in those that you do support. Note that our robot parses the
	words starting with a % sign.

%ST1 At this time a European wide security incident coordination service
     is not needed.

%ST2 A security incident coordination service will be needed in a couple of
     years. 

%ST3 A security incident coordination service is not useful at all.

%ST4 I have looked at the SIRCE proposal (ripe-150). 

%ST5 The SIRCE project should have been discussed at a RIPE meeting prior to
     asking for funding. 

%ST6 There was not enough time to consider contributing to the SIRCE pilot. 

%ST7 The RIPE NCC should not do security incident coordination. 

%ST8 The RIPE NCC should not start new services but concentrate on its
     present activities. 

%ST9 We are satisfied with the current RIPE NCC services. 

%STA RIPE should start a security coordination working group. 

%STB We do not contribute to SIRCE because the project is too vague.

%STC We do not contribute to SIRCE because the RIPE NCC is not the 
     right place to execute it.

%STD We do not contribute to SIRCE because we do not need it.

%STE We do not contribute to SIRCE because it is too expensive.

%STF The involvement of TERENA makes it SIRCE too complicated to manage.

%STG This questionaaire was easy to understand and complete.

%STH This questionnaire took too much time to complete.

%STI I like that the RIPE NCC asks for my feedback in this way.

%STJ We have not commited to contribute to SIRCE because this is not
     appropriate before the selection process on the CfP is complete.

	At this point you may want to review the statements that are
	left and delete any that you do not fully support.

Please specify the registry ID of your organisation if it has one
between the brackets.

%REGID [      ]

%END - please leave this line in