[Apwg-ipv6-papi] Meeting planning

[Daniel Stolpe]

Hi,

The not really end user, lower level (sponsored, portable) IR popped up 
again. Yes, I find it clear now that end user means the entity acually 
using the resources for themselves. But what we are looking for is the 
intermediate user, who might be an End User. Or an LIR. Well, well.

And then the "How can we back off" question occured. I think it is a valid 
point. How much responsibility are we ready to delegate to lower levels? 
As you know my company handles some dinosaur blocks of IPv4 space in this 
fashion already. And for the end users both the upsides and downsides are 
pretty obvious: they don't have to bother the NCC but they are stuck with 
us (compared to most end users who are either stuck with their ISP or with 
the NCC).

When it comes to the financials I think we are approching the limit of how 
detailed we can be at this point. We have the numbers from Andrea and a 
couple of models from Elvis, how the costs might be distributed. We should 
have an answer to the impact questions "What if we go this way? Or that 
way?" but in the end it is up to the AGM to choose.

Cheers,

Daniel

On Tue, 1 Oct 2013, Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG wrote:

> Hey Daniel
>
> I am far away from your point: I was also offline from Friday until yesterday, but I didn't reach the end of unread e-mails.
>
> I copied your text below into google doc.
>
> Best regards, Olaf
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Stolpe [mailto:stolpe at resilans.se]
> Sent: Dienstag, 1. Oktober 2013 14:51
> To: Elvis Velea
> Cc: Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG; apwg-ipv6-papi at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [Apwg-ipv6-papi] Meeting planning
>
>
> Wow,
>
> Now I have finally caught up. I had not Internet time at all on Thursday and almoste none on Friday either. Bad timing.
>
> Yes, I agree it is probably wise to let Elvis fight the list, as long as he has time. Otherwise we will probably write (hopefully) the same thing over and over.
>
> So far we have something like:
>
> * Generally positive feed back.
>
> * Som discussion about address block sizes and limits
>
> * Some discussion about the definition of lower lever IR. I remember Elvis wanting to introduce something there.
>
> I guess we should not touch END USER as defined in
>
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/internet-coordination/internet-governance/internet-technical-community/the-rir-system
>
> So if we polish the definition maybe the maling list can come up with something.
>
> * Some discussion about charging schemes, as expected.
>
> This will most probably land in some compromise, as always.
>
> I think a /32 ought to be a bit more than a /48 (50 Eur) and a bit less than full membership fee (1.800 Eur). But you can always argue that we don't want people to use a /48 to number the whole world or we don't want people to stockpile addresses just because there is no extra fee. In Sweden, we have a lot of small charges just for that reason. Anything from when supermarkets started to charge a few cents for plastic bags to the medical fees you pay when visiting a hospital (you might pay something like 30 Euros for a surgery that would really cost 2.000 Euros).
>
> As stated by Gert on the list, it is not up to us to decide about charging schemes but we should have a suggestion to the AGM.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Daniel
>
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2013, Elvis Velea wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> great, let's do it this way.
>>
>> On 10/1/13 11:26 AM, Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG wrote:
>>>  Hi Elvis
>>>
>>>  Okay, that's a good idea. So, you are our representative in the
>>> list. And  we will hopefully catch any arguments.
>>
>> Please do let me know if you disagree with any of the points I express
>> on the mailing list. I sometimes get carried away and over excited and
>> may miss some valid points :)
>>
>> cheers,
>> elvis
>>
>>>
>>>  Thanks a lot, Olaf
>>>
>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>  From: Elvis Velea [mailto:elvis at velea.eu]
>>>  Sent: Dienstag, 1. Oktober 2013 10:43
>>>  To: Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG
>>>  Cc: Daniel Stolpe; apwg-ipv6-papi at ripe.net
>>>  Subject: Re: [Apwg-ipv6-papi] Meeting planning
>>>
>>>  Hi,
>>>
>>>  I didn't have any time to keep up with the google document as well.
>>>
>>>  While I try to respond to every mail sent to the list, can you guys
>>> sumarise the feedback points on the google doc?
>>>
>>>  thanks,
>>>  elvis
>>>
>>>  On 10/1/13 9:20 AM, Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG wrote:
>>>>  +1 :)
>>>>
>>>>  One question: I saw a lot of arguments about some points. But our
>>>> google  doc "feedback points" is still blank (only four question
>>>> are noted  down). Should we catch any arguments?
>>>>
>>>>  Cheers, Olaf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  -----Original Message-----
>>>>  From: apwg-ipv6-papi-bounces at ripe.net
>>>> [mailto:apwg-ipv6-papi-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Daniel Stolpe
>>>>  Sent: Dienstag, 1. Oktober 2013 09:09
>>>>  To: Elvis Velea
>>>>  Cc: apwg-ipv6-papi at ripe.net
>>>>  Subject: Re: [Apwg-ipv6-papi] Meeting planning
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On Fri, 27 Sep 2013, Elvis Velea wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  On 9/27/13 10:02 AM, Sander Steffann wrote:
>>>>>>  Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  the discussion has started, and it's quite positive so far
>>>>>>> :-) -  working on details, working on definitions, but no
>>>>>>> fundamental  opposition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Good job so far! :)
>>>>>>  Sander
>>>>>
>>>>>  thanks ! :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>  I like the feedback received :)
>>>>
>>>>  Great effort!
>>>>
>>>>  I've just breifly read some of the discussion. I will try to catch
>>>> upp  ASAP now.
>>>>
>>>>  Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>  Daniel

_________________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Stolpe           Tel:  08 - 688 11 81                   stolpe at resilans.se
Resilans AB             Fax:  08 - 55 00 21 63            http://www.resilans.se/
Box 13 054							      556741-1193
103 02 Stockholm