[address-policy-wg] late conciliatory response to 2014-03

Hi,

On 19/01/15 22:32, Nick Hilliard wrote:

[...]
> It also creates work for the RIPE NCC and
> someone needs to pay the RIPE NCC bills both to develop and to operate the
> system.  This cost will be borne by the LIRs and as a LIR, I'm not much
> keen on funding this sort of thing.
Are you sure this battle of yours is not so that you can go on one-week 
free trips to Bali paid by the LIRs? (like the IGF a couple of years ago)

I am asking this rude question because, I do not see why you come back 
with the argument that LIRs should not fund the NCC for assigning free 
ASNs. The members during the AGM have already decided to remove the 50E 
fee for ASNs a couple of years ago and you fight with all your strength 
to put it back on.
Also, since we are talking about costs per LIRs, have you not noticed 
that the price an LIR has been paying has continuously decreased, almost 
every year? And this has been happening while the RIPE NCC budget has 
increased every year..
> Also the proposal doesn't include any sort of garbage collection mechanism.
>   In a situation where we face short-term depletion of the resource, this is
> important.
There are 32bit ASNs available with the billions.. which short-term 
depletion are you referring to? The 16bit ASNs have, already, an 
exception in the proposed policy text "When requesting a 16-bit AS 
Number, the network must be multihomed within nine months of the 
assignment. Failure to multihome within this timeframe will result in 
deregistration of the assignment."

As for the garbage collection, the 50E/assignment will not fix the 
problem (in most of the cases) because most of the LIRs just pay without 
bothering to check whether the customer still needs the resource or may 
want to return it. Maybe the RIPE NCC can actually implement a method 
where it actually asks the customer or the LIR to confirm (by ticking a 
box ?) the resource is still needed, on a yearly basis.

> Nick
>
>
/Elvis