Re: RIPE position paper - The RARE view

[Daniel Karrenberg <]

I'd like to comment on the RARE paper as a person who happens to be
co-founder of RIPE and *not* as NCC manager or RARE employee ....
<usual disclaimers etc. pp>. 

  > COA (92)080
  > T.Kalin
  > 24.8.92
  > 
  > ... 
  > 
  > RIPE NCC:
  > 
  > One should seek to have the continuity of the services provided by NCC by
  > all means. 

I couldn't agree more!  The NCC is doing useful work and providing
needed services if one can go by the usage which is made of the
services. 

Contrary to Peter's view the NCC in my opinion is not spending too much
time on writing reports at present.  The current level of reporting is
needed for the *accountability*, to demonstrate the NCC is working and
to document what it is doing. 

  
  > To achieve this goal,  the best position of the NCC is in the
  > Operational Unit, 

What is the Operational Unit?  When will it be established?  What is its
mission?  How is it funded? 

  > the organisation managing the EMPB, 

Ah, part of its mission?!?!?!!!?! 

This makes it highly undesirable to move the NCC into the same
organisation!  The mission of the NCC is coordination of all IP network
service providers.  The NCC must *never* be biased with respect to any
network service providers!  Imagine the NCC being told by the OU to make
certain adjustments in the RIPE database ......  or the EMPB getting an
unfair commercial advantage because it gets better information about
pending issues in RIPE etc.  pp. 

The NCC needs to be unbiased in every way.  This also means that *all*
service providers must contribute to NCC funding.  This must be done
right in 1993!  Service providers, please come to the RIPE meeting and
bring your checkbooks! (sorry to be blunt folks :-).

**** This is my main cirtisism of the REC paper. There are many more things
**** which deserve comment. But this one is the most critical error in it.
**** If we get this one wrong, the European Internet will have lost a few 
**** years. I personally feel very strongly about this.
  
  > subject to a
  > commitment by OU,  to offer adequate services, at the cost, also to
  > networking organisations which are not owners or customers of the OU. 

This should go without saying and is the bare minimum which does not
preclude any of the problems I mention above. 

  > This move should contribute to a better manageability of the EMPB. 

Ah, here we hear the motives.  All my concerns above verified!  THIS IS
AN INVALID AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE MOTIVATION. 
  
  > It  solves as
  > well  the problem of how to fund NCC, furthermore,  significant support
  > from CEC is very likely  in the starting period.

I do not subscribe to the view that "pecunia non olet".  The NCC should
be funded in a rational way by those benefitting from its services. 
Seed funding is OK and I am sure that RIPE is grateful to EARN, the
national memebrs of RARE, Israel and EUnet for providing it this year. 
Next year we should get it right. 


Daniel