Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)

[Bernhard Schmidt berni@localhost]

Hello,

> One concern I have about the current 2007-01 draft is the lack of arguments
> opposing the proposal mentioned under the 'Rationale' section of the document.
> While many such arguments were raised and discussed extensively on this mailing
> list, the draft itself raises only one such argument and proceeds to immediately
> dismiss it.
>
> In the current draft, some of the following objections may still be relevant to
> varying extent:
>
> - Given the diversity of legal systems the RIPE NCC service region, the success
> of contractually binding existing resource holders to a new contract and fee is
> uncertain, and might be the beginning of a long and expensive exercise in futility.
>
> - By attempting to levy a new fee on existing end users of directly assigned
> resources, RIPE NCC risks creating widespread dissent from these very same end
> users which had no voting right on this matter and were likely unaware of the
> proceedings of this WG; in the worst case scenario, this might result in end
> user utilizing resources regardless of their status in the WHOIS database.
To be honest, my intention to see 2007-01 put in action is to solve the 
imbalance imposed by the current billing scheme (PA has a recurring, for 
most networks not too small price tag attached, PI is basically free). 
Don't tell me PI is not PA because you cannot assign it to other 
endusers, there are dozens of ISPs that run entirely on PI.
Another goal, I might be sticking something into a hornet's nest here, 
is to have a pricetag imposed on the only thing that costs money to all 
service-providers worldwide, and that is routingslots. I've heard from a 
lot of people who actually want this, but I don't see any technical sane 
way to achieve it. The closest thing are recurring fees for PI space. I 
know this doesn't handle deaggregation on it's own, but it's a start.
Regarding the "new contract" thing. In my eyes, the cause with PIv4 is 
lost anyway. I want this for PIv6 from the start, and for new PIv4 
assignments to be fair. If it is legally possible to push old resource 
holders into contracts with recurring fees, do it, if it isn't then don't.
So basically what I would like to see is the following:
- a recurring fee that is imposed to all PIv6 and new PIv4 assignments
- the contract might be with a LIR or with RIPE, with substantial higher 
cost for dealing with RIPE directly
- there will be _no_ scoring system (categories or whatever) that lowers 
the cost per assignment when a LIR/enduser is managing more of them. At 
Dec. 31st every PI assignment in contractual relation with RIPE NCC 
directly costs y EUR billed to the enduser, every PI assignment in 
contractual relation with a LIR costs x EUR (0 < x < y) billed to the 
LIR WITHOUT REBATE. The LIR can decide by itself how much it adds for 
handling the contract when billing it to the enduser. This should take 
care of the "Discount LIRs".
- there should be some contract with existing PI holders. If there is 
consensus not to bill old assignments retroactively or if the legal 
advisors decide it's too risky, fine with me. Have a contract to track 
resources, but don't bill them. If however existing assignments are to 
be transferred the normal contract should be required.
So basically, bill new resources, get a sensible approach with old 
resources and finally get PIv6 out of the door.
I think 2007-01 v4.0 is the right tool to do this, and I want to see 
this soon. You may shoot now.
Bernhard