[ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks and the Board

Folks,
I have carefully read the various postings on the list and I think it is time 
for me to step forward and try to help in answer/clarify some of the less 
informed opinions that were expressed.

The RIPE/RIPE-NCC issue.

Formally Gert is right, but to some extend also the people who say RIPE and 
the RIPE-NCC are the same thing are somewhat right too, it all depends on how 
one look at it. In the early years RIPE was some 15-20 people in a room 3 times 
a year, (almost only from research and academic institutions) trying to 
coordinate the European IP networks activities and operations. Among the matters at 
hand it was the need to get IP address space from IANA, and also the need to 
perform a number of related technical activities that would allow the embryo 
of the European Internet to grow and function. Soon it became obvious to these 
people that it was not possible to do that via "volunteers" work, but some 
dedicated staff was necessary. Shortly thereafter the RIPE-NCC was born, its 
purpose to get address blocks from IANA, to be distributed locally, and to perform 
all the technical functions deemed necessary by the community.

Back then the relationship between RIPE and the RIPE-NCC was quite obvious to 
everybody, also because the people participating at RIPE meetings represented 
pretty much 100% of the "customers" of the RIPE-NCC services: RIPE would 
discuss and approve the policy to be implemented by the RIPE-NCC. RIPE would also 
provide input, discuss and approve the activity plan of the RIPE-NCC.

As of today the RIPE-NCC still implement the policies discussed and approved 
at RIPE meetings (yes, yes, Randy, I am aware of the criticism that the 
process is not altogether transparent anymore), and still seek guidelines from RIPE 
about technical activities. The main difference is that no longer 100% of the 
membership of the RIPE-NCC attend RIPE meetings (but only some 10% on average) 
and that the Activity plan/budget/fees are formally approved by those members 
who show up at the AGMs. From this point of view, for the members who do not 
attend either RIPE meetings or AGMs, RIPE and the RIPE-NCC are perceived as 
the same thing, although formally they are not. (notice that if from now on the 
RIPE-NCC AGM is held back to back with RIPE meetings this will probably 
increase this perception).

Most of the organizations that joined the RIPE-NCC in the last 3-4 years (and 
they represent the majority of the membership now) seem to have no idea of 
all the above, and only joined the RIPE-NCC organization because their 
corporations need IP addresses and AS numbers to sell their business and make money. 
They could not care less about attending RIPE meetings (short or long), 
conservation of  Ipv4 address space, and all the policies that were discussed and 
approved for that purpose, nor for the various technical activities that go with 
it, to make sure it works, or to anticipate possible future issues and make the 
Internet a better place, all they want is address space (and they only want 
to pay for that, darn!), and quick, because every customer lost represent a 
step toward bankruptcy or toward acquisition by some bigger fish, so for them the 
RIPE-NCC is only a monopolistic obstacle to their business. 

As it was stated on the list: nobody has objection to what the RIPE-NCC has 
been doing or how its being done, its more an objection of the "forced" 
participation through the funding of the NCC which is completely unfair.

I can see very well this point of view, and having been in the research world 
for quite sometime I can also see very well why, IMHO, it is flawed. Mind 
you, I am not stating here that the RIPE-NCC is lean and mean as I would like it 
to be, there is definitely room for progress, but I have to say I think it 
seems a very non-educated idea to me to split the funding this way.

The Board-has-is-head-in-the-sand-and-does-not-realize-the-situation issue.

Well, I can only speak for myself of course, but putting my board hat on I 
can tell you that I am very well aware of the fact that the Internet boom has 
caused, in the last few years, a gap between RIPE/the RIPE-NCC and its 
membership, and it took quite sometime to wake up and get the ball rolling to fix the 
situation, I plead guilty as charged here. I think, however, that a number of 
steps have been taken in the last 12 months or so to close the gap (the new 
proposed billing categories, the new algorithm taking in account Ipv6 and 
assignment dates to compute the fees, the survey, and this list being few examples) 
and more will be taken following member's input once we get it. As I stated 
already, anybody should feel free to approach us either at meetings, via mail, or 
by phone, all our data is available on the web site. Btw, I also welcome any 
proposal anybody wants to discuss and put before the AGM (and I do not see why 
anybody would not be willing to be seen "above the walls", anyway, what is he 
concerned about?), there are various ways to reach members and try to build 
enough consensus for that, via mailing lists (this one for instance), or just 
by looking at the web site, the full list is available there. 

In conclusion I can assure everybody that the board is carefully listening in 
the discussion and has the highest interest to follow and implement the 
willingness of the majority of the RIPE-NCC members.

Cheers
Daniele
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20030814/bfb83447/attachment.html>