[ncc-services-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: ICANN vs RIPE NCC, was Re: Summary of the PI ......

Peter B. Juul wrote:
> To some extend, I agree with your notion.  It can be irritating,
> indeed, to have to pay up for something you don't really see a
> purpose to.  However,
> it seems to me to be much like the whole "should our tax euros really
> be spent paying for research into things that do not have an obvious
> practical implementation (yet)?"-discussion.  Whatever non-IRR-stuff
> RIPE is doing _may_ turn out to be the next Big Thing on the nets. It
> may also fade away into the distance. Somebody, however, have to pay
> for research into that which will pay my salary in ten years, and the
> companies that will
> probably prosper from it are a reasonable suggestion for where to send
> the bill.

How is the IETF funded ? The IETF doesn't do addressing, but seems to exist
without me paying for it. In this instance, IMHO, academics should be funded
by academic models and maybe by corporate sponsorship, they should not leach
off "us" by the back door. BTW RIPE is not a government department funded by
taxpayers, else it would be subject to audits by higher bodies, not by the
collective apathy of a membership.

> If there's a problem, those who know of the problem should inform the
> lists.

I was asked in this instance to not repeat names as one of the people was
not available to approve the release of information they collected. I am
happy to support people who wish to speak up.

> Note that RIPE is only a monopoly on IPs and ASs in the sense that
> Volvo is a monopoly on Volvo cars. If you want to drive a Peugeot or
> want to make your own ipv4-internet, seperate from the one you use
> now, neither Volvo nor RIPE has any say.

Using this metaphor, RIPE has a monopoly on traffic signs and road numbers.
I can build a road, but I cannot join it to the rest of the public road
network without their involvement.

Peter