Jim, [I agree it would be better to have this discussion (again) in ncc-services. I have copied it there and encourage people to reply there only.] I could write a reply rant about the individual points in your rant but the main difference of opinion we have is about the mission of the RIPE NCC. This mission is broader than just being a RIR: "The mission of the RIPE NCC is to perform activities for the benefit of the membership, primarily activities that the members need to organise as a group, although they may be competing with each other in other areas. While an activity may result in services being provided to an individual member, performing the activity as a whole must benefit the RIPE NCC membership as a group. Membership is open to anyone using the RIPE NCC services. The activities and services of the RIPE NCC are defined, performed, discussed and evaluated in an open manner. In all of its activities, the RIPE NCC observes strict neutrality and impartiality in regard to individual members." Monitoring DNS and gathering Internet statistics has always been a part of these activities from the very first activity plan in 1991. See ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-035.txt Of course the activities themselves come and go and those that stay change shape. However the NCC is, and has always been, more than a place that just registers numbers. Daniel ------ Ah, well I'll rant back just for the heck of it. My main point is above. read on at your own risk. Rant-Warning: Moderate to Severe from Varying Directions On 10.09 12:01, Jim Reid wrote:
To be honest Daniel, I think your mail indicates the way RIPE NCC seems to have lost sight of its raison d'etre. Why is an RIR -- whose main (only?) job is to hand out IP addresses and AS numbers -- getting into other areas that are clearly outside its core business?
See above. The NCC is not getting into them it has been there all the time. It is not the RIPE NCC that is changing but it is *you* proposing a change.
ARIN and APNIC are providing that core service to their regions with a fraction of the staff that the NCC has.
Fraction yes, but not a very small one and not orders of magnitude. Also it appears to me after a quick glance at the ARIN and APNIC web sites that the RIPE NCC fees are very comparable to the fees of the other RIRs, actually slightly lower in many categories.
IMO, there must be complete transparency about non-core activities at the NCC.
I agree completely.
These things should be seen to be self-funding or else making a profit to reduce the costs of the core services and/or membership fees. If they're not, there will be a suspicion that it's the other way round. ie Income from the NCC's monopoly operations are cross-subsidising these non-core activities.
For maximum independence the membership fees should cover all activities.
Now I know you'll say that NCC does these other things as "a benefit to the community" and "the membership has approved them". I'm not so sure that either of these things are really true. Has a majority of the *membership* -- not those who turn up for the AGM or take the time to vote -- ever approved the activity plan?
I beg to disagree. Opener than RIPE NCC and RIPE is hardly possible. If people choose not to participate there is little one can do. One of my major frustrations, past and present.
Has the activity plan ever said something like "non-core activity X costs Y. If it is dropped. the membership fees can be reduced by Z. Do you want to pay for X?"?
This is very hard to do since activities are so interdependent. The budget gives a general idea of the relative sizes though.
Take DNS hosting for instance. RIPE NCC provides free service to any TLD that asks. That's fine for poor countries with weak infrastructure. Nobody should dispute that helping them is a good and noble thing and that NCC should be doing that. But serving anyone else means those TLDs are conditioned into getting something for nothing. They get into a mindset that they shouldn't have to pay for DNS service or arrange proper contracts, set up SLAs, put servers in decent IXPs, etc. In short, they don't need to take their responsibilities seriously. That has to be a Very Bad Thing in the long run. Then there's the issue about having so much important DNS stuff on ns.ripe.net. That's a Very Bad Thing too, though I know you disagree with me on this.
I see your point and I actually agree, but you have to put it into historic perspective too. There were no commercial offerings when we started this and none were expected any time soon. This activity has helped DNS stability enormously over a long period. And what about our rescue of ns.eu.net? As a matter of fact most bigger TLDs are no longer using either. So the market works. We are not marketing or improving it. But does that mean we have to shut this down now? When?
Here's another example of how NCC crossed the line IMO. The NCC was involved in the development of NSD. Fair enough, you might think. The gene pool of DNS software is too small. So having another DNS implementation is good, so this was/is a benefit to the community. However one of the NCC's members -- my former employer, Nominum -- was/is selling its own DNS implementation. So Nominum's money in membership fees was and is used to fund the NCC to develop software that competed with and undercut Nominum's product. This cannot be right. [As it turns out Nominum doesn't consider NSD to be a credible competitor or a revenue threat to its software, but that's another story.]
We needed this to responsibly operate k.root-servers.net in the light of extremely serious concerns about server software diversity combined with the requirement for open source. We have helped with the design because that is the best way to get one's requirements met. We have helped with the testing because we had to test thoroughly anyway before using it on K. So the additional effort was not that big and the Internet is now a safer place. And we have done all this *extremely* openly. You could say that I came close to bragging about it ;-).
There may well be further examples of this sort of thing in the other non-core activities of RIPE NCC. Why would anyone pay for a place on my DNSSEC training course (if I was selling one) when NCC is offering their course for free?
Who is selling DNSSEC courses? The whole point of DISI is to kick-start deployment of something that makes the Internet infrastructure more secure in the absence of clear economic drivers. We have done this before, remember CIDR?
I fear that your plans for DNS monitoring will similarly distort the market. Firstly, potential customers -- TLDs, regulators, etc -- will expect to get this type of service for free instead of paying for it as they really should. Secondly, it will prevent commercial operators, some of whom could well be NCC members, from providing this kind of service. Who can compete with free?
Yes, but is there a market? And can this be done independently and neutrally for a fee? Again we needed this for k.root-servers.net operations.
That brings up the concerns about monopolies and cross-subsidies again. Thirdly, this service could become a bottomless pit for NCC resources. What are the current and projected costs and how are they covered?
My estimate of the incremental cost of developing it so far are about 1-2 weeks of a network engineer, and 5 weeks of a chief scientist. However it is based on the network of test boxes and on the RIPE NCC web presence. How do you account for that? Difficult. We also needed something like this for operating k.root-servers.net responsibly. One could argue that the incremental cost to that is even less. But again: This helps DNS stability and Internet self-regulation. If there is another viable business model to do this at the required quality and neutrality I am all for it. I just do not see that.
of NCC extending itself well beyond its core function. Finally, incrementally adding these sorts of non-core services doesn't just entrench the NCC monopoly: it embraces and extends it.
See above. DNS monitoring is an NCC activity since 1991.
Another point. The internet and telecommunications industry has been suffering in the last few years. Budgets have been cut and companies have downsized or gone bust. At this time NCC should be seen to be tightening its belt, not adding new non-core activities.
The RIPE NCC is another kettle of fish than a commercial company. You need stability and neutrality and that has its price! What if you lean it until it falls over at the most inconveient time? Talking about fairness: The RIPE NCC does not have stock options either. Yes I have a relatively secure job, but that's because I think the RIPE NCC is important for the Internet in Europe and I chose for it *in good times* when there were *a lot* more interesting offers in terms of remuneration. Daniel
Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> writes: Hi Daniel,
There may well be further examples of this sort of thing in the other non-core activities of RIPE NCC. Why would anyone pay for a place on my DNSSEC training course (if I was selling one) when NCC is offering their course for free?
Who is selling DNSSEC courses? The whole point of DISI is to kick-start
We do. I.e. not Autonomica, but Lars-Johan Liman, Patrik Fältström and myself privately teach DNS courses on all levels since years back, including a two day course on DNSSEC. And, yes, we have had students actually cancel their seats at a scheduled course because RIPE NCC staff came to Stockholm and taught DNSSEC for free. While I can personally live with that (at least as long as you don't turn up in Stockholm too often ;-) I do think it is a clear example of the difficulties with your position of being effectively a monopoly that wants to do the right thing for the Internet. Johan PS. With the Autonomica hat on: we also do DNS monitoring, quite similar to dnsmon, and for exactly the same reasons, i.e. to monitor our various DNS services, i.root-servers.net being one of them. To offset our costs for this we are offering this service on some sort of cost recovery basis to interested parties like TLDs. Obviously even a cheap service will never be able to compete with a free one, especially since the hassle of the billing process will make both parties walk away. And, yes, we are RIPE members, so just as in the Nominum case this is our membership fees working against us. In the end this is all about education. Everyone needs to understand that there is a cost associated with providing a service. If the service is offered "for free" that is just a metaphor for "someone else is paying for it".
[pruned to ncc-services again] On 10.09 17:15, Johan Ihren wrote:
Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> writes:
Who is selling DNSSEC courses? The whole point of DISI is to kick-start
We do.
I was not aware of that. So given that, should we stop DISI and other kick-start like things. Or is the benefit to the membership as-a-whole and the community more important?
PS. With the Autonomica hat on: we also do DNS monitoring, quite similar to dnsmon, and for exactly the same reasons, i.e. to monitor our various DNS services, i.root-servers.net being one of them. To offset our costs for this we are offering this service on some sort of cost recovery basis to interested parties like TLDs.
Interesting. I have never seen any of it or seen it quoted anywhere.
In the end this is all about education. Everyone needs to understand that there is a cost associated with providing a service. If the service is offered "for free" that is just a metaphor for "someone else is paying for it".
Yes. And that someone else whould do so willingly of course. Daneil
Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> writes: Hi Daniel,
[pruned to ncc-services again]
To which I'm not yet subscribed, so this will probably not reach anyone but you initially...
Who is selling DNSSEC courses? The whole point of DISI is to kick-start
We do.
I was not aware of that. So given that, should we stop DISI and other kick-start like things. Or is the benefit to the membership as-a-whole and the community more important?
I'm not suggesting that. I'm merely giving a concrete example showing that Jim has a valid point. However, I think that in the spirit of kick-starting you need be careful about two things: 1. Make sure that you're kick-starting something that doesn't already exist or is already happening. 2. Be prepared to stop once there is to much interference with other alternatives. The problem here is that in an environment with a subsidized service, the growth of robust commercially-supported alternatives will always be retarded and constrained, and this damages the health and growth of the Internet as a whole. Both of these are close to impossible to fulfill in practice, of course. But you need to at least try hard enough to avoid complaints.
PS. With the Autonomica hat on: we also do DNS monitoring, quite similar to dnsmon, and for exactly the same reasons, i.e. to monitor our various DNS services, i.root-servers.net being one of them. To offset our costs for this we are offering this service on some sort of cost recovery basis to interested parties like TLDs.
Interesting. I have never seen any of it or seen it quoted anywhere.
Marketing is not our strongest side ;-) RIPE NCC has much more resources for marketing than we have, but I'd rather spend our resources on doing DNS than trying to compete with that.
In the end this is all about education. Everyone needs to understand that there is a cost associated with providing a service. If the service is offered "for free" that is just a metaphor for "someone else is paying for it".
Yes. And that someone else whould do so willingly of course.
Well, I think it is a bit more complicated than that. I believe that for a system to be stable there should be a trail of services performed that is matched by a reverse trail of revenues paid. That way everyone involved is both giving and receiving something and therefore they are presumably satisfied. When the costs don't follow the services performed you will have "winners" and "losers". The winners are the guys that get services without paying and the losers are those that pay without getting services. Such systems may work for a while, but long term this is bad, since you will not achieve a scalable system where increased consumption can finance increased production. But I think we're getting bogged down too deep into layman interpretation of market economics here. Johan
Another way of doing bootstrapping would be: - start with free training - offer others to "advertize" the same cources trough the same mechanisms as RIPE NCC -- may need some "minimum standard" for the courses --- do we want RIPE NCCC certified trainers perhaps -- RIPE ncc charges average of the courses on the list + 20 % -hph
Who is selling DNSSEC courses? The whole point of DISI is to kick-start
We do.
I was not aware of that. So given that, should we stop DISI and other kick-start like things. Or is the benefit to the membership as-a-whole and the community more important?
I read this as if you are asking for a blank check. It's not that easy. In certain cases and most certainly in certain countries, training for free (well, it's not actually for free. Subsidized is probably a better word) is good and needed. Doing a certain basic amount of education will also help cut costs for all of us. But that is not the same as realizing that you are competing with commercial interests. So far I don't think this has been a big deal, just as Johan says, but it does highlight the fact that the NCC needs to be aware of the issues. - kurtis -
On 10 sep 2003, at 08.15, Johan Ihren wrote:
I.e. not Autonomica, but Lars-Johan Liman, Patrik Fältström and myself privately teach DNS courses on all levels since years back, including a two day course on DNSSEC.
And, yes, we have had students actually cancel their seats at a scheduled course because RIPE NCC staff came to Stockholm and taught DNSSEC for free.
While I can personally live with that (at least as long as you don't turn up in Stockholm too often ;-) I do think it is a clear example of the difficulties with your position of being effectively a monopoly that wants to do the right thing for the Internet.
FWIW, as Johan explicitly say he _personally_ can live with it, let me also say I find this being ok, even though it feels a bit weird when RIPE NCC is competing on the market with a price we can not beat. So, don't come too often ;-) That said, totally in the world, I think there is not enough people teaching DNS. Or rather, there are enormous number of people which _should_ take a training course. paf
And, yes, we have had students actually cancel their seats at a scheduled course because RIPE NCC staff came to Stockholm and taught DNSSEC for free.
This is, in mu personal oppinion very unforunate. While I agree bootstraping new fundamental internet infrastrucure services is a good thing (tm), I think it is very unfortunate that the result of RIPE NCC providing such training for free is that comercial enterprises do not develop this area into a sound business. It is clearer to me that the matter of charging for training should be reconcidered. -hph
On Wednesday, Sep 10, 2003, at 14:50 Europe/Dublin, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
This mission is broader than just being a RIR
I agree. I hope and expect my ISP/LIR agrees. Niall
Hi, On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 04:35:48PM +0100, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
This mission is broader than just being a RIR I agree. I hope and expect my ISP/LIR agrees.
Same for me (speaking for my LIR). Nevertheless I think the new structure, with projects being discussed in the ncc-services WG and the AGM meeting 2 times a year and thus having more chances to influence projects, is a good approach. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56833 (55575) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
On Wednesday, Sep 10, 2003, at 14:50 Europe/Dublin, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Membership is open to anyone using the RIPE NCC services.
Does this mean a non-LIR can be a member? How does that work in practice? Niall
On Wednesday, September 10, 2003, at 05:40 PM, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
On Wednesday, Sep 10, 2003, at 14:50 Europe/Dublin, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Membership is open to anyone using the RIPE NCC services.
Does this mean a non-LIR can be a member?
Well, yes. You don't have to request addresses to be interested in RIPE NCC services. Maybe they are all called LIRs but it might be interesting to know how many members don't send any address requests to the NCC and therefore, maybe, are just interested in the availability of the public services. As Daniel said, from the beginning the RIPE NCC has been more than an RIR, it has been a Network Co-ordination Centre, remember the maps of the Internet?
How does that work in practice?
You sign and you pay => You benefit. Joao
On 10.09 16:40, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
Membership is open to anyone using the RIPE NCC services.
Does this mean a non-LIR can be a member? How does that work in practice?
Touche! It used to be possible to become a LIR without getting an allocation. After having focusseed this discussion here really do not want to expand it again to address-policy ;-) I am sure this will be rationalised there eventually ;-(. Maybe we need a "sponsoring member" category where organisations like sympathetic ccTLDs could do their duty without contracts and SLAs. This would serve the purpose of fairness as explained in my original mail without the darn overhead of SLAs, liabilities and other such overhead. Maybe we could have them in several, self assessed sizes too. (deja-vu! ;-) Any takers? Daniel
Membership is open to anyone using the RIPE NCC services.
Does this mean a non-LIR can be a member?
You are on the mailinglist, right?
How does that work in practice?
You just subscribe to the mailing-list or pay the attendance free for the RIPE meeting. Note that the NCC Services WG have no formal say in how the budget of the RIPE NCC is used. That is an issue for the NCC AGM. Best regards, - kurtis -
I noticed that I mixed up this thread with another. Ignore this thread. - kurtis - On torsdag, sep 11, 2003, at 14:32 Europe/Stockholm, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
Membership is open to anyone using the RIPE NCC services.
Does this mean a non-LIR can be a member?
You are on the mailinglist, right?
How does that work in practice?
You just subscribe to the mailing-list or pay the attendance free for the RIPE meeting. Note that the NCC Services WG have no formal say in how the budget of the RIPE NCC is used. That is an issue for the NCC AGM.
Best regards,
- kurtis -
On torsdag, sep 11, 2003, at 14:49 Europe/Stockholm, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
I noticed that I mixed up this thread with another. Ignore this thread.
....I meant mail... - kurtis -
- kurtis -
On torsdag, sep 11, 2003, at 14:32 Europe/Stockholm, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
Membership is open to anyone using the RIPE NCC services.
Does this mean a non-LIR can be a member?
You are on the mailinglist, right?
How does that work in practice?
You just subscribe to the mailing-list or pay the attendance free for the RIPE meeting. Note that the NCC Services WG have no formal say in how the budget of the RIPE NCC is used. That is an issue for the NCC AGM.
Best regards,
- kurtis -
Kurtis, The membership I mean is the one which has voting rights at the AGM. The mission of the NCC mentions making "services" available to "members". On paper, this would seem to be a reference to a broader community than the "LIR community in the RIPE (operational) area". I think Daniel and João understood what I meant. Niall On Thursday, Sep 11, 2003, at 13:32 Europe/Dublin, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
Does this mean a non-LIR can be a member?
You are on the mailinglist, right?
How does that work in practice?
You just subscribe to the mailing-list or pay the attendance free for the RIPE meeting. Note that the NCC Services WG have no formal say in how the budget of the RIPE NCC is used. That is an issue for the NCC AGM.
Daniel, On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 03:50:01PM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
I could write a reply rant about the individual points in your rant but the main difference of opinion we have is about the mission of the RIPE NCC. This mission is broader than just being a RIR:
While I would like to agree with you, I don't think it is all that simple. To me it sounds like this whole discussion is avoiding the real problem: The RIPE NCC's RIR function is a monopoly. People who need addresses cannot go anywhere else. They have the option to become a LIR and pay for all it's services or choose not to receive any ip addresses at all. Sooner or later this is going to draw unwanted attention from authorities. Isn't it better to take preventive action now and make sure that the monopoly function is sufficiently separate of the other activities of the NCC in order to avoid this kind of problems ?!? David K. ---
David Kessens wrote:
Sooner or later this is going to draw unwanted attention from authorities. Isn't it better to take preventive action now and make sure that the monopoly function is sufficiently separate of the other activities of the NCC in order to avoid this kind of problems ?!?
But then there would be so much less money to fritter away on personal projects and academic life. Why would you, if you were a comfortably secure manager at RIPE, want this ? Peter
Peter, | > Sooner or later this is going to draw unwanted attention from | > authorities. Isn't it better to take preventive action now and make | > sure that the monopoly function is sufficiently separate of the other | > activities of the NCC in order to avoid this kind of problems ?!? | | But then there would be so much less money to fritter away on personal | projects and academic life. Why would you, if you were a comfortably secure | manager at RIPE, want this ? Undue sarcastic consipracy theory redetected ! Because the CSM is not an egocentric individual who puts his personal pleasure above what is good for his company. I work at an ISP too, with a gazillion nice toys to abuse for my own pleasure and you may not believe it but much the same as people at the NCC, I do not wish to abuse them in any way. It's called self-rightiousness and it based upon trust (from employer to employee, from member to CSM, ... ). -- __________________ Met vriendelijke groet, /\ ___/ Pim van Pelt /- \ _/ Business Internet Trends BV PBVP1-RIPE /--- \/ __________________
David, You can't talk about monopoly when you refer to a non profit organisation. If I follow your line of thought then many other European organisations are also monopolies and should draw attention. In that case, we better all go to Cancun instead of the next RIPE meeting. I think the real question is how could the RIPE catter to ALL of its members. So say: 1) You have a basic fee for a basic service 2) You have options which you can subscribe to or not - for instance if you want informations on traffic then you have to participate financially. This would mean that as far as IP registering all members would pay a comon fee (which still could be separated in small, large, etc.) and that the money obtained from this would go to registery services and a bit of the overall RIPE structure. For the rest of the services, they would have to be financed by those who want them. Again what is paid by those would go into a separate slot and would finance their needs. However, if the RIPE is also recognized by EU institutions as THE central body then some grants should be obtainable from the EU to work on EU projects related to services the RIPE can offer. If such grants are obtained, then it is tax money from all EU citizens which finance some overall EU/RIPE activities which the RIPE is probably the best body in EU to do. So you'd have three things: - basic services paid by basic fees available to all - options paid by those interested available to those who pay the extra bit - overall EU/RIPE services available to all and paid by EU Pascal Julienne www.euroconnect.fr Daniel, On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 03:50:01PM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
I could write a reply rant about the individual points in your rant but the main difference of opinion we have is about the mission of the RIPE
NCC.
This mission is broader than just being a RIR:
While I would like to agree with you, I don't think it is all that simple. To me it sounds like this whole discussion is avoiding the real problem: The RIPE NCC's RIR function is a monopoly. People who need addresses cannot go anywhere else. They have the option to become a LIR and pay for all it's services or choose not to receive any ip addresses at all. Sooner or later this is going to draw unwanted attention from authorities. Isn't it better to take preventive action now and make sure that the monopoly function is sufficiently separate of the other activities of the NCC in order to avoid this kind of problems ?!? David K. ---
On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 10:56 AM, Pascal Julienne wrote:
David,
You can't talk about monopoly when you refer to a non profit organisation. If I follow your line of thought then many other European organisations are also monopolies and should draw attention. In that case, we better all go to Cancun instead of the next RIPE meeting.
I think the real question is how could the RIPE catter to ALL of its members.
So say:
1) You have a basic fee for a basic service 2) You have options which you can subscribe to or not - for instance if you want informations on traffic then you have to participate financially.
This would mean that as far as IP registering all members would pay a comon fee (which still could be separated in small, large, etc.) and that the money obtained from this would go to registery services and a bit of the overall RIPE structure.
Under this suggestion, would one be able to pay only for the co-ordination services and not the registration ones? Suppose I want to support the RIPE Routing Registry, plus dnsmon and possibly attend a dnssec course but I am not interested in registration services (because, for instance, the current policy does not allow me to get addresses from the RIR function of the NCC). The NCC has more to offer than just registration services, in the area of co-ordination. Co-ordination usually requires a party that is not one of the co-ordinated ones.
For the rest of the services, they would have to be financed by those who want them. Again what is paid by those would go into a separate slot and would finance their needs.
However, if the RIPE is also recognized by EU institutions as THE central body then some grants should be obtainable from the EU to work on EU projects related to services the RIPE can offer. If such grants are obtained, then it is tax money from all EU citizens which finance some overall EU/RIPE activities which the RIPE is probably the best body in EU to do.
In general, EU money tends to come with EU conditions. Careful consideration should be given to something like this. In addition, the RIPE NCC service region is broader than just the EU, something that sometimes is forgotten by all involved. Joao
I haven't meant to establish the fee schedule. I just gave an example of how this could work. The pricing formula and the different services one might want to offer would have to be studied more. To me it is just good economic principle to offer different rates and different services and that the money gotten goes toward these services. As far as EU is concerned, yes I am aware that RIPE takes care of more than EU but I don't think it is an obstacle. In fact I think EU has to spend money for Africa for instance and a non profit organisation should be a good candidate for grant. I also think that EU conditions are not something to be worried about. Being blind about what their conditions are would be crazy but it is just as crazy to be an EU wide organisation dealing with a subject that is one of the factor of economic growth and not have a financial support from it. EU spends zillions on things which to me are much less important than what the RIPE can do and which surely aren't a key component of growth. And even if we forget about growth but only talk about social activities, the internet is also a factor of social welfare. Lately on the different mailing lists there has been a lot of talks about RIPE costs, Fees, economics, internet being more and more a factor in the economy, etc yet at the same time I see little discussion on marketing aspects, sales, normal accounting practices (analyzing what income comes in, for what and what are the real costs). I sure don't mean to be over critical because I appreciate the RIPE and what it does but it seems to me that non-profit is viewed as non-business. That is not the case, one can be non-profit yet deal in costs and pricing issues, marketing, etc and ALSO financial relationship with government institution. In short be a full fledge business which makes money that is reinvested in its operating and not distributed as profit. Pascal Julienne EURO CONNECT SA 130, rue du Bourg-Bele - BP 21099 - 72001 LE MANS Cedex 1 - FRANCE Tel : (33) 02 43 14 12 76 - Fax : (33) 02 43 14 12 77 http://www.euroconnect.fr -----Message d'origine----- De : ncc-services-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:ncc-services-wg-admin@ripe.net]De la part de Joao Luis Silva Damas Envoye : jeudi 11 septembre 2003 12:56 A : Pascal Julienne Cc : 'RIPE NCC Services WG'; Marlene COUILLEAUX (E-mail) Objet : Re: [ncc-services-wg] Re: [dns-wg] Re: dnsmon / .org On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 10:56 AM, Pascal Julienne wrote:
David,
You can't talk about monopoly when you refer to a non profit organisation. If I follow your line of thought then many other European organisations are also monopolies and should draw attention. In that case, we better all go to Cancun instead of the next RIPE meeting.
I think the real question is how could the RIPE catter to ALL of its members.
So say:
1) You have a basic fee for a basic service 2) You have options which you can subscribe to or not - for instance if you want informations on traffic then you have to participate financially.
This would mean that as far as IP registering all members would pay a comon fee (which still could be separated in small, large, etc.) and that the money obtained from this would go to registery services and a bit of the overall RIPE structure.
Under this suggestion, would one be able to pay only for the co-ordination services and not the registration ones? Suppose I want to support the RIPE Routing Registry, plus dnsmon and possibly attend a dnssec course but I am not interested in registration services (because, for instance, the current policy does not allow me to get addresses from the RIR function of the NCC). The NCC has more to offer than just registration services, in the area of co-ordination. Co-ordination usually requires a party that is not one of the co-ordinated ones.
For the rest of the services, they would have to be financed by those who want them. Again what is paid by those would go into a separate slot and would finance their needs.
However, if the RIPE is also recognized by EU institutions as THE central body then some grants should be obtainable from the EU to work on EU projects related to services the RIPE can offer. If such grants are obtained, then it is tax money from all EU citizens which finance some overall EU/RIPE activities which the RIPE is probably the best body in EU to do.
In general, EU money tends to come with EU conditions. Careful consideration should be given to something like this. In addition, the RIPE NCC service region is broader than just the EU, something that sometimes is forgotten by all involved. Joao
On Monday, September 15, 2003, at 12:09 PM, Pascal Julienne wrote:
I haven't meant to establish the fee schedule. I just gave an example of how this could work. The pricing formula and the different services one might want to offer would have to be studied more. To me it is just good economic principle to offer different rates and different services and that the money gotten goes toward these services.
The point I was trying to make is that if you really want to have packages, not everyone will be interested in access to registration services. There are organisations interested in coordination activities carried out by the RIPE NCC while at the same time not wanting to become an LIR. This just illustrates the fact that the RIPE NCC, while performing the RIR function for the RIPE region, is more than an LIR. Perhaps it is worth spending some time looking at the feasibility (or not) of service packages in the context of the RIPE NCC, keeping in mind some basics needs such as the need for stability already expressed by Daniel.
As far as EU is concerned, yes I am aware that RIPE takes care of more than EU but I don't think it is an obstacle. In fact I think EU has to spend money for Africa for instance and a non profit organisation should be a good candidate for grant.
Certainly, the EU could spend some money in Africa. I am sure a lot of European citizens would agree with that statement.
Lately on the different mailing lists there has been a lot of talks about RIPE costs, Fees, economics, internet being more and more a factor in the economy, etc yet at the same time I see little discussion on marketing aspects, sales, normal accounting practices (analyzing what income comes in, for what and what are the real costs).
I agree, though perhaps sales is not the best word to describe activities in this context and marketing is what has frequently been called outreach.
I sure don't mean to be over critical because I appreciate the RIPE and what it does but it seems to me that non-profit is viewed as non-business. That is not the case, one can be non-profit yet deal in costs and pricing issues, marketing, etc and ALSO financial relationship with government institution. In short be a full fledge business which makes money that is reinvested in its operating and not distributed as profit.
From my personal point of view, it is quite OK to be critical about RIPE and the RIPE NCC, as long as the criticism is constructive. I don't personally appreciate the responses of people who seem to take any sort of opinion expressed about RIPE requesting improvement as a direct attack. Cheers, Joao
The RIPE NCC's RIR function is a monopoly.
and a lot of the rest seems to descend in what we call NIH fashion from there. HIH is idiomatic for Not Invented Here, a syndrome where no one else does as well as we can, represents 'our' members (as if we were owned and not members of any other sets), ... so we must do everything ourselves because it is soooo much better. it is hard to sort out what is actually needed and appropriate for the registry and what is NIH. as i said some weeks ago
an interesting question, to which i have no answer. i would note the contrast between the four current rirs, with arin being very bare-bones address allocation, lacnic adding more educational outreach as they perceive a need in their region, apnic which does more infrastructure and more outreach work, and ripe/ncc which has major branches into representing isps in policy fora, doing r&d, etc.
but your and johan's points about an organization with one foot standing on a monopolistic position and the other foot competing with the open market may be important. randy
"Daniel" == Daniel Karrenberg <daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net> writes:
Daniel> Who is selling DNSSEC courses? I was thinking this might have been a way to keep me in very fine, rare malt whisky. :-) I have an Advanced DNS Admin course that could be used as the basis of a DNSSEC training course. However, there's not much point in trying to develop and sell such a course -- far less try to make a living from that -- when RIPE NCC is offering one "for free" that would attract most, if not all, potential customers. That's hardly fair or neutral, eh? >> I fear that your plans for DNS monitoring will similarly >> distort the market. Firstly, potential customers -- TLDs, >> regulators, etc -- will expect to get this type of service for >> free instead of paying for it as they really should. Secondly, >> it will prevent commercial operators, some of whom could well >> be NCC members, from providing this kind of service. Who can >> compete with free? Daniel> Yes, but is there a market? And can this be done Daniel> independently and neutrally for a fee? These questions can't be answered if NCC does this for free and therefore strangles at birth any attempts by someone else to offer these services and/or create a market for them. Daniel> Again we needed this for k.root-servers.net operations. Fine. So monitor K and ns.ripe.net and ns.eu.net: the servers directly under the NCC's responsibility. But stop there. There's a huge leap going from there to monitoring every TLD and root server on the planet "for free" and I just don't see the justification for that quite frankly. Monitor these other servers by all means. Provided the people running those servers pay at least the full costs of providing that service to them. This would of course require much more transparency in identifying the costs and overheads of providing these additional, non-core services. Daniel> The RIPE NCC is another kettle of fish than a commercial Daniel> company. You need stability and neutrality and that has Daniel> its price! Indeed. But where is the neutrality if NCC is raising the barriers to entry by offering additional, non-core services "for free" that are cross-subsidised from its core, monopoly services? I've given a couple of examples where NCC's actions/policies have far from neutral market consequences. Simply by their existence, these non-core services NCC offers have eliminated competition. Or prevented commercial players entering the market. What's worse, those additional services might have been provided by the NCC membership if they'd been given the chance. And that extra revenue could have helped them pay for NCC's recently increased fees. :-) I would also like to see the NCC's projects (such as DISI) subject to regular external review to ensure they are seen to be on track and meeting their objectives, deliverables, timelines and budgets. Perhaps this already happens and I as a non-member just don't know about that? Daniel> What if you lean it until it falls over at the Daniel> most inconveient time? This is less likely to happen if NCC sticks to its core job -- an RIR -- and makes sure it has enough cash to carry out that role. The further NCC moves from its absolutely critical RIR responsibility, the more likely that core function will be at risk. And the more likely the EU's anti-competition people will come knocking at the door.... Daniel> Talking about fairness: The RIPE NCC does not have stock Daniel> options either. Yes I have a relatively secure job, but Daniel> that's because I think the RIPE NCC is important for the Daniel> Internet in Europe and I chose for it *in good times* when Daniel> there were *a lot* more interesting offers in terms of Daniel> remuneration. Daniel, please don't take my earlier comments personally. This discussion has nothing to do with our respective career choices or money. It's about more important things. :-) FYI, I don't have stock options either. [These die when you get downsized you know.] I don't even have a job. Let alone a relatively secure one. And as I look for new things to do in the DNS arena, there's this 800 pound NCC gorilla in my backyard which is almost literally eating my lunch. It's giving away "for free" the services I might want to provide and try to earn a living from. Where's the fairness you speak of? The only consolation I have is that since I'm not an NCC member, I'm not paying for that gorilla to eat my lunch.
Hi!
Daniel> Who is selling DNSSEC courses?
I was thinking this might have been a way to keep me in very fine, rare malt whisky. :-) I have an Advanced DNS Admin course that could be used as the basis of a DNSSEC training course. However, there's not much point in trying to develop and sell such a course -- far less try to make a living from that -- when RIPE NCC is offering one "for free" that would attract most, if not all, potential customers. That's hardly fair or neutral, eh?
RIPE could buy courses wholesale from you and "give" it to their LIRs -- another way to start a market 8-} -- MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 17 years to go ! LF.net GmbH fon +49 711 90074-23 pi@LF.net Ruppmannstr. 27 fax +49 711 90074-33 D-70565 Stuttgart mob +49 171 3101372
Daniel,
Another point. The internet and telecommunications industry has been suffering in the last few years. Budgets have been cut and companies have downsized or gone bust. At this time NCC should be seen to be tightening its belt, not adding new non-core activities.
The RIPE NCC is another kettle of fish than a commercial company. You need stability and neutrality and that has its price! What if you lean it until it falls over at the most inconveient time?
There is a big danger in what you say above. Stability yes - but not at any price. The stability is there for the core service of the NCC, to act as a RIR. The rest is benefits that we get on the side. What most people have been asking for is transparency and accountability on why, and to what costs certain projects are done. Saying that this has always been part of the NCCs tasks is not an answer to those questions. Best regards, - kurtis -
participants (16)
-
Daniel Karrenberg -
David Kessens -
Gert Doering -
Hans Petter Holen -
Jim Reid -
Joao Damas -
Joao Luis Silva Damas -
Johan Ihren -
Kurt Erik Lindqvist -
Kurt Jaeger -
Niall O'Reilly -
Pascal Julienne -
Patrik Fältström -
Peter Galbavy -
Pim van Pelt -
Randy Bush