When I signed up to the ripe mailing list in mid-1990, there was no registration service, but it was a coordination initiative for IP in Europe.
And that wasn't the RIPE NCC.
That's OK for us (speaking for de.lfnet and probably for de.oberon as well).
Yes but, as I recall, after the Terena split is when +everyone+ effectively signed up to the NCC.
With the reports, meeting reports etc, my requirements for transparency and cost control are met, I have no problem.
That isn't governance though is it? In my view the the RIPE NCC should look at ways of splitting the registration services away from "all the other stuff" and enable the members to sign up to just the registration services without funding all the other things that they may see little or no benefit from. Those that see benefit from activties like the route monitoring etc, can support them and fund them more directly. Just to be clear, I don't think anyone, in most cases, has an objection to what the RIPE 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. The RIPE NCC management and board could easily deliver this, and if they looked at the situation with an open mind they should know that the current situation is unsustainable and they should be actively leading to resolve this rather than risk the dangers of burying their heads in the sand. Regards, Neil.