[ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks

At 12:46 PM 20-08-03 +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
>>>>i see your point and i hope u see mine.  i would like to see something 
>>>>like this brought to the membership for a vote or poll of some sort.
>>>>i would hope majority rules and accept the decision of the 
>>>>membership.  -Han
>>>
>>>If you have a proposal, I will make room for you in the agenda.
>>
>>Is this sufficient?
>
>Comments below. Do you want to make a presentation as well?

I don't think I will.  I think this is more for a general discussion than a 
presentation.  See below.


>>Proposal: LIR voting for RIPE NCC services
>>------------------------------------------
>>
>>The RIPE NCC provides the following public services:
>>
>>- Registration services for Ipv4, Ipv6, inverse, ASN, and enum
>>- Whois database
>>- Routing Information Service project
>>- Routing Registry Consistency project
>>- Monthly RIPE region hostcount
>>- DNSSEC services
>>- Test Traffic measurement project
>>- Training courses (LIR, DNSSEC, Routing registry)
>>- RIPE tri-annual conference
>>
>>It is proposed that these services be presented by the RIPE NCC to the
>>LIR membership on an annual basis, detailing the costs involved to run
>>each item, the amount of manpower involved for each item and the revenue
>>generated by each item. Based on this background information, every LIR
>>will be asked to vote which work items they support and which work items
>>they recommend to be downsized or terminated, or funded directly by
>>those members participating in those specific projects.
>>
>>This poll of the LIR membership is to be performed no later than 4 months
>>prior to the start of the next financial year, thereby leaving the RIPE NCC
>>sufficient time to reorganize its staff.
>
>I am somewhat against the "poll of the LIR membership". I think a 
>discussion at each NCC service WG is good. For practical reasons I would 
>suggest (and this is actually something that Axel suggested to me in 
>Barcelona as one of the tasks of the WG) that planned and existing 
>projects are discussed in relation with the next years budget at the 
>autumn RIPE meeting. This would give the NCC enough time to work on 
>Budgets based on the discussions. I guess that one problem that arises is 
>if we are also to accept the budget at the AGM that is in association with 
>that RIPE meeting, the time in between is very short.

A discussion doesn't get a true measure of the membership.  It gets the 
voice of the LIRs that can afford the travel, the LIRs that are closer to 
the venue to make travel easier, and the LIRs with a bigger voice in 
meetings.  What is the % of LIRs that attend?

In regards to the mechanics, budgets and timing - it very well may not work 
out for 2004 and I would be happy to see the above proposal hashed out and 
implemented in 2004 to affect the 2005 budget.   -Hank


>- kurtis -