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

Hi,

On Tue, Aug 12, 2003 at 03:29:44PM +0100, Peter Galbavy wrote:
> Gert Doering wrote:
> > You're confused.  RIPE isn't funded in any way.  RIPE is "all of us".
> >
> > The funding goes to the RIPE NCC, which has offices, employees, and
> > needs money to do the work that RIPE (we) ask them to do.
> 
> Then why do people (in RIPE / RIPC NCC) make a distinction ?

I don't understand that question.  You were complaining that people make
this distinction "just to confuse matters" - and I was trying to give
a precise definition as for what is what.

Especially it's not "RIPE *and* the RIPE NCC are both funded in some
convoluted ways".  RIPE is NOT (and can't be, by definition).

[..]
> >> be optional and extra. At the moment, those of us who just want IPes
> >> and ASes have to pay for others to play with their academic toys.
> >> Why ?
> >
> > Because the majority of the members hasn't voted against it.
> 
> Because the system is weighted in such a way that getting a vote proposed,
> let alone voted on by any real number of people, is difficult to impossible.

I can't agree with that statement.  

I have been quite successful in changing some of those pieces that 
annoyed me.

[..]
> > On the other hand, if you just want IP addresses and AS numbers, you
> > *can* go through an ISP (but it will reduce the number of options that
> > you have).
> 
> No you cannot, because you are then buying from your (potential)
> competition. 

In what way is "getting an AS number from the competition" something
that's harmful for your business in the long run?

As far as I understand your situation, getting a PI address block through
any other ISP, and announcing that via your AS (that you have already)
should solve your needs without causing any competitive problems either.

[..]
> I am not looking to break the natural monopoly, but rather I am looking to
> move to a situation where the "monopoly" stuff is walled off from the
> optional stuff that RIPE/RIPE-NCC management (and friends) use to pay for
> their own pet projects. I am happy to pay on a cost basis for the "monopoly"
> stuff, but I don't get a choice.

Isn't that exactly what the activity plan is about, which is agreed-upon
on a very specific date that was announced *WELL* in advanced, and where
every LIR can go and vote for or against?  You can even bring proxy votes.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  56535  (56318)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299