[ncc-services-wg] RIPE tasks

>> I am just trying to understand you reasoning. So you agree that the
>> projects of RIPE NCC are useful, but you don't really want to pay for
>> them?
>
> No, not quite. I agree that *some* of the non registry projects that 
> RIPE
> has undertaken are useful. I strongly object however to not being 
> consulted
> if *my* money shoul be spent on them.

You have been. You might not like how that process have been done, but 
you have most certainly had the opportunity to comment on it all on the 
mailinglists.

> The problem here is that there is some sort of belief that there is a
> democracy operating at RIPE and that the membership fees are some sort 
> of
> tax that goes into a shared pot.

I am not following this. Perhaps you could explain again.

>  This view, IMHO, is flawed. RIPE is a
> self-agrandising monopoly that abuses its position to extract money 
> from a
> wide range of "members" that, ultimately, cannot be bothered with 
> arguing
> about a "few thousand euro" for the service they get - because for most
> member representatives, this is not their own money but that of their
> employers - and why should they fight the system ?

I think a lot of people "fight" the system. At every meeting and in 
many posts to the mailinglists over the years.

>> Personally I am not sure this is so much of an issue over if the RIPE
>> NCC should do certain projects, as I think this is an issue over
>> increased transparency in financials, information to the membership
>> and better reporting on project progress/costs to the membership.
>
> You missed the bit about *asking* us what we think.

No, I said in another email I think that the WG should discuss the 
projects, and running ones based on performance. However, the WG can 
not have the decision right as that is with the AGM.

> That is the point I am
> trying to make - everyone "in power" conveniently forgets the 
> consultation /
> approval part and pretends that a one way information channel is 
> enough.


Oh so I am also "in power"? And we haven't even had the first meeting! 
Wow ;-)

I don't think anyone have forgotten this. Much of the input from the 
KPMG survey centers around this and from what I understand that was the 
sole reason for Axel to start the effort. I am sure Axel can comment on 
this...

Best regards,

- kurtis -