[ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks

Alex,

> With regard to the repeatedly stated opinion that
> the RIPE NCC management, and the RIPE NCC Executive
> Board are unaware of the members' opinions, and needs,
> I am convinced that those members of the community
> who have followed the events, presentations and planning 
> discussions of the last year (from the conduct of the 
> membership survey 2003, the move of the General Meeting to 
> the Friday of the RIPE Meeting, and through to the proposal 
> of the Activity Plan and other documents in preparation of 
> that General Meeting), know full well that we are very aware 
> of these concerns, and that actions continue to be proposed, 
> and are taken where approved, to adjust activities to the 
> expressed need of RIPE NCC members and stakeholders.
> 
> The existence of this Working Group and mailing list
> in itself is just one minor outcome.

You need to move faster then as the impression you give is
that you are dragging your feet, and as they say where
I come from - The Natives are Restless.
 
> The point of "Just Registration Service" is moot.

Until you demonstrate this point in my view you are
talking complete and utter nonsense. 

> As we all now, the industry has changed. Well, actually
> the running of a geeks' network instead of the
> politically correct technology has *become* the industry
> before that. And thus has attracted all sorts of
> people, politicians, lawyers, bureaucrats, the lot.

Anyone who believes that these people have only just
become involved in this industry are very short-sighted.
These people +have+ always been involved in one way or
another. Is it not a sign of our industries maturity that
some involvement has changed - absolutely and personally
speaking thats a good thing in the most part.

> We cannot go back to the old days of just registering
> numbers. The risk is high that one day we would awake
> to the ITU doing Internet Governance. "Please see your
> local MP to effect a change in IP allocation policy,
> to be discussed at the next plenipotentiary of the ITU."

And correctly the RIPE NCC and other organisation was setup
to deal with issues like this. But the RIPE NCC was not
setup to deal with spam or other "insert random activity here".

> We need to do more, to establish the RIPE NCC in the minds
> of politicians, journalists, "the public" as a trustworthy 
> place you can turn to to gain insight in the operations of 
> the Internet.

I'm not sure I agree and I think the RIPE NCC needs to do more 
to establish itself with its members first Alex!

However, If this is the direction the NCC is heading in, then 
the RIPE NCC needs more thinking around its organisation and 
how it structures to ensure that this "objective" is met, because 
at the moment, frankly, its a million miles away from where it 
needs to be to be successful in those areas. Even more particularly 
so, in the case that we have a situation where the level of member 
involvement is a serious problem, you said the work trustworthy? 
How can you be trustworthy when the level of member interest is
highly questionable? When you sign up members for one thing
and do another?! Doesn't sound too trusting to me.

I'm not against a number of the RIPE's activities, in fact some
of the work that has been done has been great, but it needs to have 
strong foundations and support from the RIPE NCC members and 
stakeholders and at the moment that isn't the case. 

I'd hazard a guess that a vast majority of the members 
signed up so they can register IP addresses, AS numbers and get 
reverse DNS and if all the other stuff stopped tomorrow that they
wouldn't even notice. In my view this is the critical part of the
problem.

The purpose of the RIPE NCC are the registration services which is what 
we signed up for. 

There are a several other organisations that have been setup working
with the public and the media to lobby specific points and actions.
Yes the RIPE NCC needs to be involved but I do not believe for one
moment it needs to be the leading in these activities and these 
activlties should be focused around the registration and internet
numbering areas noted above.

> About the RIPE meetings: They are crucially important
> to the functioning of the RIPE NCC, and of industry
> self regulation. Yes, they should be self supporting,
> but they aren't fully. Can we raise the meeting fees?
> Of course. But we need to balance this very carefully, as
> we cannot run the risk of eating into attendance numbers
> too much.

Alex, I agree the RIPE meeting is important, but the length
of the meeting and the amount of actual work that comes out of
the meeting is highly questionable. Rather than raise meeting
fees, look to shorten the meeting so that it is more cost effective
and has more focus on getting some work done. The general meeting
of the RIPE NCC should be part of the RIPE meeting also. I hear
time and time again from alot of people that if the RIPE meeting
was more focused and shorter then they would attend it more often.

I'd be interested to hear what plans you have to modernise the meetings.

Regards,
Neil.