From alexb at ripe.net Mon Apr 7 11:09:44 2014 From: alexb at ripe.net (Alex Band) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 11:09:44 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Changes to IP Analyser web interface and API (incl. "asused") Message-ID: Dear colleagues, We are in the process of implementing the policy regarding Post Depletion Adjustment of Procedures (2013-03). One of the services that will be affected is the IP Analyser. This tool provides an overview of all invalid assignments, as described here: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/number-resources/invalid-assignments Some elements have become redundant, which means we will be making several changes to the web interface, as well as the API which offers JSON and plain text ?asused? style output. If you have any scripts that use this output, please check the following article on RIPE Labs so you can prepare for the upcoming changes: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/AlexBand/modifications-to-the-ip-analyser-to-reflect-new-policy We intend to implement these changes on 16 April 2014. Kind regards, Alex Band Product Manager RIPE NCC From bijal.sanghani at euro-ix.net Mon Apr 7 12:28:46 2014 From: bijal.sanghani at euro-ix.net (Bijal Sanghani) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 11:28:46 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Call for Agenda Items RIPE68 - RIPE NCC Services WG Message-ID: Dear NCC-Services WG, RIPE68 is a few weeks away and we are putting the agenda together for the NCC Services WG. This is your opportunity to let the RIPE NCC know what you want from them, if you would like to suggest a topic for discussion or have a presentation you have or would like to see presented please get in touch with the working group chairs at ncc-services-wg-chairs at ripe.net. Best regards, Bijal Sanghani RIPE NCC Services WG Co-Chair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From training at ripe.net Tue Apr 8 10:04:01 2014 From: training at ripe.net (Training Services) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 10:04:01 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] [training] RIPE NCC Webinars - new dates Message-ID: <5343AD71.3040601@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce the launch of new dates for our Webinars. The RIPE NCC Webinars are live and take only one hour. You can interact with our trainers without leaving your desk. We focus on the topics and issues most important for LIRs. Register now at https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/e-learning/webinars Participation is limited to 20 people, so don't hesitate if you want to take part! If you have questions, please email . We look forward to seeing you online. Kind regards, RIPE NCC Training Services From matt.parker at ripe.net Tue Apr 8 14:48:35 2014 From: matt.parker at ripe.net (Matt Parker) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:48:35 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Assisted Registry Check - First Results Message-ID: <5343F023.6030606@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, In the final quarter of 2013, the RIPE NCC launched the Assisted Registry Check (ARC) for our members. This enhancement to the RIPE NCC's audit activities was initiated after feedback from members indicated that our earlier audit process could do with some improvement. The initial group of Assisted Registry Checks were concluded in the first quarter of 2014 and the RIPE NCC has carried out an in-depth review of the feedback we received. The results of this review have now been published in the following RIPE Labs article: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/matt_parker/assisted-registry-check-first-results We have also incorporated this feedback into our procedures for future Assisted Registry Checks, to ensure they remain useful and relevant for our members. If you would like to volunteer for an Assisted Registry Check, please send an email to and we will contact you with further details. Kind regards, Matt Parker Registration Services RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ebais at a2b-internet.com Wed Apr 9 10:49:10 2014 From: ebais at a2b-internet.com (Erik Bais) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:49:10 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Question about AW history in the LIR Portal Message-ID: <005601cf53d0$9b66c3e0$d2344ba0$@a2b-internet.com> Hi, Having seen the email from Alex on Monday in regards to the changes about invalids in the ASUSED report, the question that came to my mind is what the (future) use is for: - Assignment Window (and history) >From what we see, is that the RIPE NCC is currently adjusting the tools (Like the Portal and API?s) for the 2013-03 implementation. I think that is a good thing and I would like to ask here in the group if there are people who require their AW status or history from the past, now that there is no need for justification. For all I care you can assign your complete allocation for 1 customer as long as you document it properly in the database The same probably goes for the list of Assignments Made by RIPE NCC in the Portal the approved assignments outside your AW by the RIPE NCC hostmasters. Obviously it is nice for historic reference .. however .. is it needed ? Is it required for future use ? These could be removed imho and people can document them in the database themselves and it will make the way that we look as assignments within PA space a lot easier I think. Perhaps it is currently still required for audit reasons by the IPRA?s ? But if we are getting rid of the invalids .. why not get rid of the AW and RIPE Approved Assignments as well ? Regards, Erik Bais -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From xavier at ripe.net Thu Apr 17 12:23:13 2014 From: xavier at ripe.net (Xavier Le Bris) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 12:23:13 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Implementation plan for 2012-07, "RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders" Message-ID: Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC has updated the implementation plan for ripe-605 "RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders" (accepted policy proposal 2012-07): https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/policy-implementation-plans/2012-07-implementation The implementation that specifically relates to the RIPE Database has been updated in line with these revisions: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/policy-implementation-plans/2012-07-implementation-ripe-db We have revised this plan so that all AUT-NUM and parent legacy Internet resource holders will be notified of status changes in one batch. These notifications will be sent when the software is deployed to the Resource Candidate (RC) Test Environment. When the software is deployed to production, after RIPE 68, all status values will be generated or set on the same day. Notifying all resource holders in the same, single batch ensures consistency and accuracy across the entries in the RIPE Database. The process of contacting all resource holders in multiple batches would have been a more time-consuming and drawn out process. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or feedback. Kind regards, Xavier Le Bris IP Resource Analyst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2609 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tore at fud.no Sat Apr 19 12:33:00 2014 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 12:33:00 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option Message-ID: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> First of all I'd like to congratulate the proposal authors and the WG for having finally brought the legacy space out of the "legal vacuum" it was residing in. Well done! The agenda for May's General Meeting was recently published[1] and as expected one of the points is about 2012-07's implementation plan[2]. Keeping in line with section 2.4 of the proposal[3], the plan proposes to implement a new [non-]membership class where I assume the [non-]member in question will only receive services relating to their legacy resources, but not the rest of the services normally offered to RIPE NCC members / LIRs. I do get a strong sense of d?j? vu here - isn't this pretty much exactly the same membership class as the Direct Assignment User ("DAU") that was first introduced by proposal 2007-01 and subsequently scrapped by the General Meeting in September 2012[4]? Is there any conceivable scenario were a legacy holder would prefer to become a DAU over becoming a full member? I cannot think of one - as I understand it, a full member would be provided with all the services a DAU would (and more), at a lower cost[5]. Why would anyone want to pay more for less? I believe we made the right choice in scrapping the original DAU membership class. We now have a extremely simple and easy to understand membership structure, and a predictable charging scheme. Therefore I currently have a problem with voting for the Board's proposed implementation plan as I see it as a regression. That said, I am open to be persuaded why we do need another "DAU" membership class for legacy holders. So if anyone know of a compelling rationale for section 2.4, please help me out here... Tore [1] https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/may-2014/agenda [2] https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/may-2014/supporting-documents/ProposedImplementationPlanforLegacyServices.pdf [3] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-605#2-4-option-to-engage-directly-with-the-ripe-ncc [4] http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/announcements/ripe-ncc-charging-scheme-2013 [5] https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/may-2014/supporting-documents/ChargingScheme2015.pdf From sander at steffann.nl Sat Apr 19 15:15:39 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 15:15:39 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> Message-ID: <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> Hi Tore, > I believe we made the right choice in scrapping the original DAU > membership class. Please be aware that it has NOT been officially scrapped. It is still both in the policies that came out of 2007-01 and 2012-07. It is just that the NCC does not implement those policies correctly anymore... If scrapping that option is the considered the right thing to do then it should go through the policy development process and be removed from the policies. The RIPE NCC members overruling RIPE policy here worries me a lot. Sander From tore at fud.no Mon Apr 21 10:50:23 2014 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 10:50:23 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> Hi Sander, > If scrapping that option is the considered the right thing to do then > it should go through the policy development process and be removed > from the policies. For what it's worth, I brought up this exact issue during the PDP last year, but got no response. > The RIPE NCC members overruling RIPE policy here worries me a lot. I believe the easiest way to prevent that from happening would be to explain why the reason why the option exists in the first place. I would have no problem voting in favour of the changing the membership structure if I understood why the option exists, who would use it, how come they wouldn't prefer any of the other options offered by the policy, and so on. Tore From sander at steffann.nl Mon Apr 21 12:23:29 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:23:29 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> Message-ID: <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> Hi Tore, >> If scrapping that option is the considered the right thing to do then >> it should go through the policy development process and be removed >> from the policies. > > For what it's worth, I brought up this exact issue during the PDP last > year, but got no response. As long as the argument is 'can we get rid of this because nobody needs it', and not 'can we get rid of this because the NCC doesn't/won't implement it (in a usable form) anyway' then I don't mind :) Cheers, Sander From tore at fud.no Mon Apr 21 14:11:13 2014 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 14:11:13 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> * Sander Steffann > As long as the argument is 'can we get rid of this because nobody > needs it', Precisely. I don't currently understand who would possibly need or want this option, given that the other options available seems better in every possible way. But then again, I might be missing something - which is why I brought it up. If a good reason for keeping the option does exist, then I would like to educate myself about it, so that I can make an informed decision when casting my vote (or possibly abstaining) at the GM. > and not 'can we get rid of this because the NCC doesn't/won't > implement it (in a usable form) anyway' then I don't mind :) As far as I can tell, the NCC's proposal will, if approved, faithfully implement 2012-07's "DAU" option. Whether or not that option is useful to anyone is a different question entirely - the answer to that question is what I'm looking for here. Tore From sander at steffann.nl Mon Apr 21 15:04:11 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:04:11 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> Message-ID: Hi Tore, >> and not 'can we get rid of this because the NCC doesn't/won't >> implement it (in a usable form) anyway' then I don't mind :) > > As far as I can tell, the NCC's proposal will, if approved, faithfully > implement 2012-07's "DAU" option. Not really. 2012-07 says 'the RIPE NCC may require the payment of reasonable charges according to the terms of the non-member service contract'. Making the DAU contract *more* expensive than becoming a full member does not even come close to 'reasonable' in my opinion. But this is something that the board and the AGM will have to decide on. And because potential DAU users are not members, that is really looking like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, without the sheep having a vote... Sander From randy at psg.com Mon Apr 21 15:14:32 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 06:14:32 -0700 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> Message-ID: > Precisely. I don't currently understand who would possibly need or want > this option, given that the other options available seems better in > every possible way. i am a legacy holder. i get dns, whois, ... now, for free. i do not wish to be beholden to an LIR. i am quite willing to pay a couple hundred euros/year for a cert. i am not willing to pay 1,800, it's outrageous. randy From tore at fud.no Mon Apr 21 15:28:42 2014 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:28:42 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> Message-ID: <53551D0A.8020204@fud.no> * Sander Steffann > Not really. 2012-07 says 'the RIPE NCC may require the payment of > reasonable charges according to the terms of the non-member service > contract'. Making the DAU contract *more* expensive than becoming a > full member does not even come close to 'reasonable' in my opinion. I disagree, as I think you are disregarding the economies of scale. The existing LIR membership structure is already in place and there are already over 10.000 members who are sharing the total cost, resulting in a small share to pay for each member. The new DAU membership class for legacy holders would be be the exact opposite, and as a result I believe it is perfectly reasonable to expect that each individual DAU member must share a might higher share of the total needed to support this new class. Put it another way, I would assume that the total operational cost of the NCC adding 100 new LIRs is much higher than the cost of adding a single new DAU member. (This would obviously be subject to change over time once when/if sufficient DAU members joins, and the economies of scale principle start kicking in for the DAU membership class as well.) Tore From tore at fud.no Mon Apr 21 15:43:17 2014 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:43:17 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> Message-ID: <53552075.4090206@fud.no> * Randy Bush > i am a legacy holder. i get dns, whois, ... now, for free. i do > not wish to be beholden to an LIR. i am quite willing to pay a > couple hundred euros/year for a cert. i am not willing to pay 1,800, > it's outrageous. Well, the proposed charging scheme for 2015 is ?1600 per year both for a full LIR membership, and a "legacy-only/DAU" membership. If you're a legacy holder there's a ?2000 sign-up fee for "DAU", ?0 for LIR. https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/may-2014/supporting-documents/ChargingScheme2015.pdf The way I'm thinking, is that either: 1) if ?money's no object?, one would go for the LIR option, as that gives the most services and the possibility to get IPv6 and a last-/8 /22 (which you then could probably sell to cover the fee... :-P), or: 2) if you don't have ?1600 to spend, you'll either bite the bullet and get sponsored by another LIR for ?50, or stay with the free "status quo" option. Either way, the DAU option doesn't seem very useful. Right? Tore From randy at psg.com Mon Apr 21 15:44:41 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 06:44:41 -0700 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <53552075.4090206@fud.no> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <53552075.4090206@fud.no> Message-ID: > 2) if you don't have ?1600 to spend, you'll either bite the bullet and > get sponsored by another LIR for ?50, or stay with the free "status quo" > option. > > Either way, the DAU option doesn't seem very useful. Right? C E R T I F I C A T I O N From gert at space.net Mon Apr 21 15:53:55 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:53:55 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <53552075.4090206@fud.no> Message-ID: <20140421135355.GL43641@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 06:44:41AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > > 2) if you don't have ???1600 to spend, you'll either bite the bullet and > > get sponsored by another LIR for ???50, or stay with the free "status quo" > > option. > > > > Either way, the DAU option doesn't seem very useful. Right? > > C E R T I F I C A T I O N > But if I understand Tore right, you should be able to get that by having a "sponsoring LIR" (just as a non-legacy PI holder). So the benefit DAU gives you is "directly deal with the NCC". Gert -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tore at fud.no Mon Apr 21 15:55:44 2014 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:55:44 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <53552075.4090206@fud.no> Message-ID: <53552360.9040105@fud.no> * Randy Bush >> 2) if you don't have ?1600 to spend, you'll either bite the bullet and >> get sponsored by another LIR for ?50, or stay with the free "status quo" >> option. >> >> Either way, the DAU option doesn't seem very useful. Right? > > C E R T I F I C A T I O N Both the LIR option and the DAU option gives you certification for your legacy resources. In addition, the LIR option gives you the possibility to request IPv4, IPv6, and some other stuff like extra Atlas features. Finally, the LIR option is also ?2000 cheaper than the DAU one, due to the waived sign-up fee. Why would you or anyone else then choose the DAU option over the LIR option? Tore From sander at steffann.nl Mon Apr 21 15:59:36 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:59:36 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <53552360.9040105@fud.no> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <53552075.4090206@fud.no> <53552360.9040105@fud.no> Message-ID: Hi, > Both the LIR option and the DAU option gives you certification for your > legacy resources. > > In addition, the LIR option gives you the possibility to request IPv4, > IPv6, and some other stuff like extra Atlas features. Finally, the LIR > option is also ?2000 cheaper than the DAU one, due to the waived sign-up > fee. > > Why would you or anyone else then choose the DAU option over the LIR option? That is exactly the point. The policy specifies that there should be an option for 'deal with the NCC directly without becoming a full member'. Then the NCC creates an option that is *more* expensive than becoming a full member, and then kills it because nobody wants is. If you *make* people not want it by attaching ridiculous prices to it then that is the obvious outcome. But it goed 200% against the spirit of the policy, and I am VERY angry because of that. Sander From tore at fud.no Mon Apr 21 16:01:11 2014 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:01:11 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <53551D0A.8020204@fud.no> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <53551D0A.8020204@fud.no> Message-ID: <535524A7.4030007@fud.no> * Tore Anderson > Put it another way, I would assume that the total operational cost of > the NCC adding 100 new LIRs is much higher than the cost of adding a > single new DAU member. Thinko... s/higher/lower/ Tore From randy at psg.com Mon Apr 21 16:01:29 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 07:01:29 -0700 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <53552360.9040105@fud.no> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <53552075.4090206@fud.no> <53552360.9040105@fud.no> Message-ID: > Both the LIR option and the DAU option gives you certification for your > legacy resources. do you not read my messages, or do you just pretend to ignore them? > Why would you or anyone else then choose the DAU option over the LIR option? try reading this again. or not. randy --- From: Randy Bush Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option To: Tore Anderson Cc: ncc-services-wg at ripe.net, Sander Steffann Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 06:14:32 -0700 > Precisely. I don't currently understand who would possibly need or want > this option, given that the other options available seems better in > every possible way. i am a legacy holder. i get dns, whois, ... now, for free. i do not wish to be beholden to an LIR. i am quite willing to pay a couple hundred euros/year for a cert. i am not willing to pay 1,800, it's outrageous. randy From randy at psg.com Mon Apr 21 16:03:43 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 07:03:43 -0700 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <20140421135355.GL43641@Space.Net> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <53552075.4090206@fud.no> <20140421135355.GL43641@Space.Net> Message-ID: >> C E R T I F I C A T I O N > > But if I understand Tore right, you should be able to get that by having > a "sponsoring LIR" (just as a non-legacy PI holder). So the benefit DAU > gives you is "directly deal with the NCC". i do not wish to be exposed to arbitrary actions of an LIR. it makes no business sense. it is essentially a three way contract, and those are historically fraught with complexity and eventual unhappiness. randy From randy at psg.com Mon Apr 21 16:12:23 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 07:12:23 -0700 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <53552075.4090206@fud.no> <53552360.9040105@fud.no> Message-ID: > That is exactly the point. The policy specifies that there should be > an option for 'deal with the NCC directly without becoming a full > member'. Then the NCC creates an option that is *more* expensive than > becoming a full member, and then kills it because nobody wants is. If > you *make* people not want it by attaching ridiculous prices to it > then that is the obvious outcome. But it goed 200% against the spirit > of the policy, and I am VERY angry because of that. i am also very very unhappy. but have too much work to do to spend time in anger. i will save it for warsaw. i suspect relatively few will take this option. most legacy in the ncc region is academic, and many tend to have regional LIRs, e.g. janet, nordunet, ... but there are significant educational legacy holders who are not in such a position, do not have a lot of cash (think south and east), etc. and there are some commercial and private legacy holders with no reason to become vulnerable to an LIR and who are not rich. so there will be some who will take advantage of the direct option. and i think we want them to have certification. and we and they should be happy to have them pay modestly for a cert. randy From gert at space.net Mon Apr 21 16:15:39 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:15:39 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <53552075.4090206@fud.no> <20140421135355.GL43641@Space.Net> Message-ID: <20140421141539.GM43641@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 07:03:43AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > >> C E R T I F I C A T I O N > > > > But if I understand Tore right, you should be able to get that by having > > a "sponsoring LIR" (just as a non-legacy PI holder). So the benefit DAU > > gives you is "directly deal with the NCC". > > i do not wish to be exposed to arbitrary actions of an LIR. it makes no > business sense. it is essentially a three way contract, and those are > historically fraught with complexity and eventual unhappiness. Sorry - you said that earlier upthread, I was only focusing on the certification bit here. Sponsoring LIR seems to work out well if there is "friendly and trustworthy LIRs" around, and at least for our "sponsorees", the ability to deal with someone local in our native language trumps the "direct contract, no intermediate parties" alternative. But I can see that others might want the latter, and the policy explicitely requests the NCC to install that - so indeed, it should be done in a reasonable way. (*sigh* there go my evening plans for Wednesday... this will be a long and just so slightly heated discussion in the ncc-services WG, I'm afraid) Gert -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tore at fud.no Mon Apr 21 16:25:02 2014 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:25:02 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <53552075.4090206@fud.no> <53552360.9040105@fud.no> Message-ID: <53552A3E.5080407@fud.no> * Randy Bush >> Both the LIR option and the DAU option gives you certification for your >> legacy resources. > > do you not read my messages, or do you just pretend to ignore them? I do read them, but perhaps I have an idea where the confusion comes from... When I say ?LIR option? above, I refer to the one specified in section 2.2 of ripe-605, where the legacy holder becomes a LIR and maintains direct control of his own legacy resources. This options has a total yearly cost of ?1600, assuming the proposed 2015 charging scheme is accepted by the GM, and no sign-up fee. I am *not* talking about option in section 2.3, where the legacy holder would engage with a sponsoring LIR for ?50/year. I assume that when you state that you ?do not wish to be beholden to an LIR?, you are not talking about *your own* LIR (in the context of option 2.1 or 2.2), but only an external sponsoring LIR (in the context of option 2.3). So assuming option 2.3 is out of the question, and that you do not currently have an LIR (making 2.1 out too), you're left with two options to get your legacy resources certified, as far as I can tell: Option 2.2) Become LIR - ?1600 cost for year 1, extra services and resources provided in addition to the legacy stuff Option 2.4) Become DAU - ?3600 cost for year 1, no extra services, strictly legacy-related services provided Who would go for option #2.4 and why? And if the answer is "no one", why do we need option #2.4? Tore From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Mon Apr 21 16:36:24 2014 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:36:24 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <53552075.4090206@fud.no> Message-ID: <20140421143624.GA68181@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 06:44:41AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: >C E R T I F I C A T I O N When did RIRs become the only certificate authority? AIUI, a RIR is "trusted" qua managing the certified resources. If they don't manage the resources, why is having their cert better than printing one's own or indeed setting up an alternative (and cheaper) registry for these resources? rgds, Sascha Luck From gert at space.net Mon Apr 21 17:04:38 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 17:04:38 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <53552A3E.5080407@fud.no> References: <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <53552075.4090206@fud.no> <53552360.9040105@fud.no> <53552A3E.5080407@fud.no> Message-ID: <20140421150438.GN43641@Space.Net> Hi, On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 04:25:02PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > Who would go for option #2.4 and why? Quite likely "nobody on this list"... > And if the answer is "no one", why do we need option #2.4? ... because the policy says so, as in "the community decided that they want the NCC to offer this" (or at least "nobody during the PDP felt strong enough about it to remove it"). Gert -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sander at steffann.nl Mon Apr 21 17:20:15 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 17:20:15 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <20140421150438.GN43641@Space.Net> References: <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <53552075.4090206@fud.no> <53552360.9040105@fud.no> <53552A3E.5080407@fud.no> <20140421150438.GN43641@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hi, >> Who would go for option #2.4 and why? > > Quite likely "nobody on this list"... > >> And if the answer is "no one", why do we need option #2.4? > > ... because the policy says so, as in "the community decided that they > want the NCC to offer this" (or at least "nobody during the PDP felt > strong enough about it to remove it"). I remember that for 2007-01 there were a few organisations that wanted/needed that option. But because the NCC charged as much for DAU as for full LIR they obviously choose the latter. That doesn't show that the DAU option is not what people want though, only that the NCC made it very unattractive. I know that the authors of 2012-07 recognised this, which is why the policy explicitly says that option 2.4 must be offered for 'reasonable charges'. There are legacy resource holders who want that option (and they are indeed probably not on this list). All the options were thoroughly discussed with several legacy resource holders and NCC staff before publishing each version of 2012-07 to make sure that everything was done right. It really felt like a good cooperation where the NCC was actually listening to the whole community, not just the part of it that are its members. The current charging fee proposal has broken (part of) that trust again, at least for me :( Sander From nick at netability.ie Mon Apr 21 18:05:54 2014 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 18:05:54 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> Message-ID: <535541E2.8060702@netability.ie> On 21/04/2014 10:50, Tore Anderson wrote: > I believe the easiest way to prevent that from happening would be to > explain why the reason why the option exists in the first place. I would > have no problem voting in favour of the changing the membership > structure if I understood why the option exists, who would use it, how > come they wouldn't prefer any of the other options offered by the > policy, and so on. the initial intention in 2007-01 was that PI holders would be able to engage directly with the NCC without going through an intermediate. It immediately became clear that the NCC really oughtn't compete with its members, so they were put in a position that they needed to charge enough to make it clear that this was not happening. To this end, the board proposed that the direct option would be priced at the same level as the LIR membership fee. I wasn't very happy about this decision at the time, but changed my mind afterwards. There are enough LIRs out there that getting a friendly one to act as sponsor shouldn't be difficult. If it turns out that you don't like one, you can quickly and easily shift the resources to another. The same arguments apply to 2012-07. I'm not surprised that they've priced the direct option the same as LIR membership, because that's the point at which they absolutely cannot be accused of competing with their members. No doubt in a couple of years, this option will disappear from the RIPE NCC service list because few people if any are going to avail of it. The sky will not fall. Nick From tore at fud.no Tue Apr 22 10:13:32 2014 From: tore at fud.no (Tore Anderson) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:13:32 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <20140421150438.GN43641@Space.Net> References: <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <53552075.4090206@fud.no> <53552360.9040105@fud.no> <53552A3E.5080407@fud.no> <20140421150438.GN43641@Space.Net> Message-ID: <535624AC.9000800@fud.no> * Gert Doering > ... because the policy says so, as in "the community decided that they > want the NCC to offer this" But from Randy and Sander's messages to this thread it seems fairly clear that the DAU option the membership is asked to approve at the GM is *NOT* what the community (or at least not the 2012-07 authors) wanted the NCC to offer. So, what do I do at the GM? - If I vote YES to both the proposed 2015 charging scheme AND the proposed 2012-07 implementation plan, I will have voted in favour of the NCC wasting time and effort implementing an apparently useless DAU option which in any case is not the one the community/proposal authors wanted in the first place. - If I vote NO to either the proposed 2015 charging scheme and/or the proposed 2012-07 implementation plan, I will have rejected the useless DAU option and its implementation, but that probably means there won't be *any* DAU option, useful or useless. There appears to be no way possible combination of votes that I can cast at GM that would establish a *useful* DAU option in line with how the community and 2012-07 authors wanted it (i.e., one where "reasonable charges" means "significantly cheaper than full LIR status"). I find that quite problematic! Tore From nick at netability.ie Tue Apr 22 10:50:18 2014 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:50:18 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <535624AC.9000800@fud.no> References: <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <53552075.4090206@fud.no> <53552360.9040105@fud.no> <53552A3E.5080407@fud.no> <20140421150438.GN43641@Space.Net> <535624AC.9000800@fud.no> Message-ID: <53562D4A.6070103@netability.ie> On 22/04/2014 10:13, Tore Anderson wrote: > There appears to be no way possible combination of votes that I can cast > at GM that would establish a *useful* DAU option in line with how the > community and 2012-07 authors wanted it (i.e., one where "reasonable > charges" means "significantly cheaper than full LIR status"). I find > that quite problematic! you could ask for some time to talk about it at the GM, maybe with a formal petition to the board? Personally, I don't think this is worth getting upset about. Nor do I see that there is any issue with being "beholden to an LIR". If you don't like your LIR, then you change and get another. There are 10000 of them and changing sponsoring LIR is not hard (been there, done that, T shirt wasn't worth printing). If there are issues with certification of legacy / directly assigned ipv4 resources, then they should be dealt with separately by e.g. the ripe ncc providing an option for this to be delegated directly to the assignee / end user. Nick From gert at space.net Tue Apr 22 11:01:53 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:01:53 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <535624AC.9000800@fud.no> References: <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <53552075.4090206@fud.no> <53552360.9040105@fud.no> <53552A3E.5080407@fud.no> <20140421150438.GN43641@Space.Net> <535624AC.9000800@fud.no> Message-ID: <20140422090153.GX43641@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:13:32AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > > ... because the policy says so, as in "the community decided that they > > want the NCC to offer this" > > But from Randy and Sander's messages to this thread it seems fairly > clear that the DAU option the membership is asked to approve at the GM > is *NOT* what the community (or at least not the 2012-07 authors) wanted > the NCC to offer. > > So, what do I do at the GM? [..] > There appears to be no way possible combination of votes that I can cast > at GM that would establish a *useful* DAU option in line with how the > community and 2012-07 authors wanted it (i.e., one where "reasonable > charges" means "significantly cheaper than full LIR status"). I find > that quite problematic! Yeah. They are doing it again. I think we'll see quite a bit of heated discussion in ncc-services - but I have no idea what to vote for, except maybe for "do not discharge the board". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sander at steffann.nl Tue Apr 22 11:13:54 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:13:54 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <20140422090153.GX43641@Space.Net> References: <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <53552075.4090206@fud.no> <53552360.9040105@fud.no> <53552A3E.5080407@fud.no> <20140421150438.GN43641@Space.Net> <535624AC.9000800@fud.no> <20140422090153.GX43641@Space.Net> Message-ID: Hi, > Yeah. They are doing it again. I think we'll see quite a bit of > heated discussion in ncc-services - but I have no idea what to vote > for, except maybe for "do not discharge the board". I hope the board won't let it get to that. Let's hope that this is all a big misunderstanding and give them a chance to reply to this thread to fix this in a reasonable way. Cheers, Sander From dave.wilson at heanet.ie Tue Apr 22 12:04:39 2014 From: dave.wilson at heanet.ie (Dave Wilson) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:04:39 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <535541E2.8060702@netability.ie> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <535541E2.8060702@netability.ie> Message-ID: <53563EB7.90801@heanet.ie> On 21/04/2014 17:05, Nick Hilliard wrote: > The same arguments apply to 2012-07. I'm not surprised that they've priced > the direct option the same as LIR membership, because that's the point at > which they absolutely cannot be accused of competing with their members. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but: it's not priced the same (as far as non-member legacy holders are concerned.) It's priced a one-off fee of ?2000 higher than becoming a LIR, and ?2000+?1550 per year higher than using the services of an existing member. All the best, Dave -- Dave Wilson, Project Manager web: www.heanet.ie HEAnet Ltd, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 tel: +353-1-660-9040 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 fax: +353-1-660-3666 From nick at netability.ie Tue Apr 22 12:13:58 2014 From: nick at netability.ie (Nick Hilliard) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:13:58 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <53563EB7.90801@heanet.ie> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <535541E2.8060702@netability.ie> <53563EB7.90801@heanet.ie> Message-ID: <535640E6.8090808@netability.ie> On 22/04/2014 12:04, Dave Wilson wrote: > Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but: it's not priced the same (as far as > non-member legacy holders are concerned.) It's priced a one-off fee of > ?2000 higher than becoming a LIR, and ?2000+?1550 per year higher than > using the services of an existing member. It's the same cost as setting up a new lir from scratch using proposed 2015 pricing. I.e. it will be marginally cheaper than in 2014, but the pricing will be equalised next year. Nick From dave.wilson at heanet.ie Tue Apr 22 12:40:39 2014 From: dave.wilson at heanet.ie (Dave Wilson) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 11:40:39 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <535640E6.8090808@netability.ie> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <535541E2.8060702@netability.ie> <53563EB7.90801@heanet.ie> <535640E6.8090808@netability.ie> Message-ID: <53564727.5000106@heanet.ie> >> Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but: it's not priced the same (as far as >> non-member legacy holders are concerned.) It's priced a one-off fee of >> ?2000 higher than becoming a LIR, and ?2000+?1550 per year higher than >> using the services of an existing member. > > It's the same cost as setting up a new lir from scratch using proposed 2015 > pricing. I.e. it will be marginally cheaper than in 2014, but the pricing > will be equalised next year. The annual fee is the same, yes, but also in the 2015 charging scheme: "Legacy Internet resource holders that become a member do not have to pay a sign-up fee." So for the audience of 2012-07, becoming a LIR is a flat one-off ?2000 cheaper than a separate direct agreement. BTW to be clear: removing the signup fee for DAU (or adding it back for becoming a LIR) would still not in my opinion be a meaningful implementation of option 2.4. All the best, Dave -- Dave Wilson, Project Manager web: www.heanet.ie HEAnet Ltd, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 tel: +353-1-660-9040 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 fax: +353-1-660-3666 From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Tue Apr 22 13:10:41 2014 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:10:41 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <53564727.5000106@heanet.ie> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <535541E2.8060702@netability.ie> <53563EB7.90801@heanet.ie> <535640E6.8090808@netability.ie> <53564727.5000106@heanet.ie> Message-ID: <20140422111041.GA71775@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:40:39AM +0100, Dave Wilson wrote: >The annual fee is the same, yes, but also in the 2015 charging >scheme: "Legacy Internet resource holders that become a member do not >have to pay a sign-up fee." So for the audience of 2012-07, becoming >a LIR is a flat one-off ?2000 cheaper than a separate direct >agreement. At least it makes the intention clear - the NCC wants to gain control of these legacy resources (whereas the goal of 2012-07, AIUI, is to ensure a way to keep resources registered, without the holders giving up control). IMO this implementation negates many of the changes that came out of the long debate on this proposal... rgds, Sascha Luck From zsako at iszt.hu Tue Apr 22 15:21:57 2014 From: zsako at iszt.hu (Janos Zsako) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:21:57 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <20140422111041.GA71775@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <535541E2.8060702@netability.ie> <53563EB7.90801@heanet.ie> <535640E6.8090808@netability.ie> <53564727.5000106@heanet.ie> <20140422111041.GA71775@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <53566CF5.7030206@iszt.hu> From zsako at iszt.hu Tue Apr 22 15:52:23 2014 From: zsako at iszt.hu (Janos Zsako) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:52:23 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <20140422111041.GA71775@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <535541E2.8060702@netability.ie> <53563EB7.90801@heanet.ie> <535640E6.8090808@netability.ie> <53564727.5000106@heanet.ie> <20140422111041.GA71775@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <53567417.4060600@iszt.hu> From zsako at iszt.hu Tue Apr 22 16:09:45 2014 From: zsako at iszt.hu (Janos Zsako) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:09:45 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option Message-ID: <53567829.2000907@iszt.hu> Dear Sascha, [I am still investigating why my mailer sent two empty mails to the list. I suspect this is due to some special character in the message I was replying to. I am sorry for the inconvenience.] >> The annual fee is the same, yes, but also in the 2015 charging scheme: "Legacy Internet resource holders that become a member do not have to pay a sign-up fee." So for the audience of 2012-07, becoming a LIR is a flat one-off EUR 2000 cheaper than a separate direct agreement. > > At least it makes the intention clear - the NCC wants to gain control of > these legacy resources I am afraid I do not understand why you think the charging scheme could help the RIPE NCC gain control over legacy resources. To my understanding, all legacy resources would be marked as "legacy" irrespective of the fact that the holder (1) becomes a member, (2) is already a member an extends the contract to cover the legacy resources as well, (3) uses a sponsoring LIR, (4) enters in direct contractual relationship wit the NCC or (5) does not sign any contract at all. The RIPE NCC may not de-register the legacy resources unless asked to do so by the resource holder. Moreover, if the contract (with the member, the sponsoring LIR or DAU) is terminated, the resource is simply flagged "No contract". Best regards, Janos > (whereas the goal of 2012-07, AIUI, is to ensure > a way to keep resources registered, without the holders giving up > control). IMO this implementation negates many of the changes that came > out of the long debate on this proposal... > > rgds, > Sascha Luck From lists-ripe at c4inet.net Tue Apr 22 17:05:47 2014 From: lists-ripe at c4inet.net (Sascha Luck) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:05:47 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <53567829.2000907@iszt.hu> References: <53567829.2000907@iszt.hu> Message-ID: <20140422150547.GC71775@cilantro.c4inet.net> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 04:09:45PM +0200, Janos Zsako wrote: >The RIPE NCC may not de-register the legacy resources unless asked to do >so by the resource holder. Moreover, if the contract (with the member, >the sponsoring LIR or DAU) is terminated, the resource is simply flagged >"No contract". AIUI, if a resource holder extends the SSA to cover legacy resources, there is a risk that if the NCC is unhappy with the LIR wrt *these* resources, the LIR could be sanctioned and lose their *other* resources. That is pretty effective control in my understanding. This logic also now makes it clear why Option 2.4 is needed, an existing LIR may mitigate this risk by having their legacy resources covered by a separate, more individual, contract. Interesting in this context is also the statement that under option 2.3, "the RIPE NCC will not allow the Legacy Resource Holder to become the sponsoring LIR for its own Legacy Internet Resources." rgds, Sascha Luck PS: I hold no legacy resources so I don't really have a pig in this race. From hph at oslo.net Tue Apr 22 16:49:19 2014 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:49:19 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> Message-ID: <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> Hi Randy, I have some sympathy for your point of view, but also see some consecuences of it: On 21/04/2014 15:14, Randy Bush wrote: > i am a legacy holder. i get dns, whois, ... now, for free. i do not > wish to be beholden to an LIR. i am quite willing to pay a couple > hundred euros/year for a cert. i am not willing to pay 1,800, it's > outrageous. How is this different from a new LIR that only gets a /22? Some of them have even expressed that they think thoose who have large amounts of address space should pay much more. I seem to rememeber from the budget discussion when the one-member-one fee structure was passed that the expenses were roughly in 3 parts - a) registration services - b) supporting open policy fora such as RIPE meetings - c) other services like Atlas, DNSmon... If you - as a legacy holder - should be able to "opt-out" of b and c, why should I (read a new LIR with only a /22 or any other LIR) not be allowed to do the same? I seem to recall, as Tore stated, that this was excactly the discussion we had when the "one member one fee" structure was put in place. -hph From zsako at iszt.hu Tue Apr 22 17:34:52 2014 From: zsako at iszt.hu (Janos Zsako) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:34:52 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <20140422150547.GC71775@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <53567829.2000907@iszt.hu> <20140422150547.GC71775@cilantro.c4inet.net> Message-ID: <53568C1C.2070403@iszt.hu> Dear Sascha, >> The RIPE NCC may not de-register the legacy resources unless asked to do >> so by the resource holder. Moreover, if the contract (with the member, >> the sponsoring LIR or DAU) is terminated, the resource is simply flagged >> "No contract". > > AIUI, if a resource holder extends the SSA to cover legacy resources, > there is a risk that if the NCC is unhappy with the LIR wrt *these* > resources, the LIR could be sanctioned and lose their *other* resources. To my understanding, if the NCC has any problems with any _legacy_ resources, they may terminate only the _legacy_services_ (see: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/may-2014/supporting-documents/UpdatetoClosureofMemberandDeregistrationofInternetNumberResources.pdf part "C. Legacy Internet Resources", paragraph 1.1. > That is pretty effective control in my understanding. I am afraid this is a misunderstanding. > This logic also now makes it clear why Option 2.4 is needed, an existing > LIR may mitigate this risk by having their legacy resources covered by a > separate, more individual, contract. I do not think this was the reason for making option 2.4 available. The authors could either confirm or deny this. > Interesting in this context is also the statement that under option 2.3, > > "the RIPE NCC will not allow the Legacy Resource Holder to become the > sponsoring LIR for its own Legacy Internet Resources." I think the reason for this is that the resource holder and the sponsoring LIR have to sign a contract. How could the two parties of a contract be the same entity? Nevertheless, extending the contract to cover the legacy space too is cheaper for the member (they do not have to pay the 50 EUR per legacy assignment). Best regards, Janos > > rgds, > Sascha Luck > > PS: I hold no legacy resources so I don't really have a pig in this > race. > From sander at steffann.nl Tue Apr 22 17:49:22 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 17:49:22 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> Message-ID: <455CBC18-97D8-4F62-95F1-C5DB996E5CFD@steffann.nl> Hi Hans Petter, > I have some sympathy for your point of view, but also see some consecuences of it: > > On 21/04/2014 15:14, Randy Bush wrote: >> i am a legacy holder. i get dns, whois, ... now, for free. i do not >> wish to be beholden to an LIR. i am quite willing to pay a couple >> hundred euros/year for a cert. i am not willing to pay 1,800, it's >> outrageous. > > How is this different from a new LIR that only gets a /22? > Some of them have even expressed that they think thoose who have large amounts of address space should pay much more. > > I seem to rememeber from the budget discussion when the one-member-one fee structure was passed that the expenses were roughly in 3 parts > - a) registration services > - b) supporting open policy fora such as RIPE meetings > - c) other services like Atlas, DNSmon... > > If you - as a legacy holder - should be able to "opt-out" of b and c, > why should I (read a new LIR with only a /22 or any other LIR) not be allowed to do the same? Euhm, I don't think the intention is to 'opt-out' of b and c at all. I think that all contributions to the NCC should be used to support all activities. The amount going to b and c should be a percentage of a (which is the core function of the NCC). The differences between LIRs and DAUs are in part (a). LIRs can get allocations form the NCC, make assignments to customers, get help from the NCC with the Assisted Registry Check, be a sponsoring LIR for others etc. DAUs only get something for themselves. They aren't allowed to assign any rights to third parties, so their registry services are much more limited. (I am also thinking about 2007-01 here. For 2012-07 the DAUs bring their own address space, so there the registry functions are much less anyway, they just get the right to document stuff in the RIPE DB) And for such a 'own use only' relationship the cost for (a) should be adjusted accordingly, just like the contribution to (b) and (c). I definitely would be opposed to people being able to choose whether they want (a,b,c), just (a) or any other combination. (well, I wouldn't mind donors that only pay for (b,c), but ok) We are a community, we're trying to get the legacy resource holders back in and that includes participating in the funding of the other functions of the RIPE NCC. Cheers, Sander From dave.wilson at heanet.ie Tue Apr 22 17:54:51 2014 From: dave.wilson at heanet.ie (Dave Wilson) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:54:51 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> Message-ID: <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> Hi Hans Petter, Steffan's already posted about the detail, but I have a more abstract answer. On 22/04/2014 15:49, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > How is this different from a new LIR that only gets a /22? For the same reason we needed a policy in the first place. The policy arose specifically so that legacy resource holders wouldn't be required to become members. We (the RIPE community) are the ones asking legacy resource holders for something new here, not the other way around. RIPE NCC first started asking LRHs to become members, without a policy, at the time of RIPE 63 in Vienna. The objective of RIPE-605 is to give a basis in policy for LRHs to become members if they wish; to contribute reasonably if not; and get certain services (and not others) based on their choice. > If you - as a legacy holder - should be able to "opt-out" of b and c, > why should I (read a new LIR with only a /22 or any other LIR) not be > allowed to do the same? Not trying to be glib here but I see it as this simple: because there is no basis in policy for that. Best regards, Dave -- Dave Wilson, Project Manager web: www.heanet.ie HEAnet Ltd, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 tel: +353-1-660-9040 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 fax: +353-1-660-3666 From hph at oslo.net Tue Apr 22 22:05:33 2014 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:05:33 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <455CBC18-97D8-4F62-95F1-C5DB996E5CFD@steffann.nl> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <455CBC18-97D8-4F62-95F1-C5DB996E5CFD@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <994020addf1003b6d5e49614ad5f4b6b.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> Hi Sander, > Euhm, I don't think the intention is to 'opt-out' of b and c at all. Why should you then pay less as a legacy holder? > I think that all contributions to the NCC should be used to support all > activities. Good - then we agree on that part. >The amount going to b and c should be a percentage of a (which > is the core function of the NCC). I do not understand > The differences between LIRs and DAUs are in part (a). LIRs can get > allocations form the NCC, Not really - there is no more v4 space, remember. Legacy holders can also get v6 space - which I would encourage. if they already have v6 space trough an existing LIR - thats their perfect match for a "sponsoring LIR" >make assignments to customers, Why not? I Think several of the legacy holders are doing exactly that. > get help from the > NCC with the Assisted Registry Check, be a sponsoring LIR for others etc. As a legacy holder signed up as an LIR you can get all these services from the RIPE NCC. Unless you want to "opt-out" from these services. > DAUs only get something for themselves. They aren't allowed to assign any > rights to third parties, so their registry services are much more limited. Why? IMHO Address space is address space. > (I am also thinking about 2007-01 here. For 2012-07 the DAUs bring their > own address space, so there the registry functions are much less anyway, > they just get the right to document stuff in the RIPE DB) If you look at the 2014 activity plan http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-598 page 4. Which of the lines would you take out? > We are a community, we're trying > to get the legacy resource holders back in and that includes participating > in the funding of the other functions of the RIPE NCC. Agreed, but I am not sure on how we can do that only for legacy holders without causing trouble with existing membership. And remember creating a new membership class has an implementation cost - which then must be added after From hph at oslo.net Tue Apr 22 22:14:31 2014 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:14:31 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> Message-ID: > Hi Hans Petter, > > Steffan's already posted about the detail, but I have a more abstract > answer. I guess this was to abstract for me. > For the same reason we needed a policy in the first place. The policy > arose specifically so that legacy resource holders wouldn't be required > to become members. The RIPE NCC is a membership organisation with the purpose of providing services to its members. IMHO becoming a member gives you rights (like electing the board, thus influencing the activity plan and the fee structure), taking services gives you obligations like paying. Why would you want only the obligations and not the rights? > We (the RIPE community) are the ones asking legacy resource holders for > something new here, not the other way around. RIPE NCC first started > asking LRHs to become members, without a policy, at the time of RIPE 63 > in Vienna. The objective of RIPE-605 is to give a basis in policy for > LRHs to become members if they wish; to contribute reasonably if not; > and get certain services (and not others) based on their choice. > >> If you - as a legacy holder - should be able to "opt-out" of b and c, >> why should I (read a new LIR with only a /22 or any other LIR) not be >> allowed to do the same? > > Not trying to be glib here but I see it as this simple: because there is > no basis in policy for that. I do not understand why this should be different for legacy holders and others. I do have sympathy for Randy?s point of view: it is to expensive. But that may as well apply to new addresses just as for old addresses. We used to have a fee structure where amount of addresses and age of addresses affected the fee. This was changed by the AGM not the policy process. Thus - the fee structure is not set by the policy process, but by the AGM. -hph From hph at oslo.net Tue Apr 22 22:05:26 2014 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:05:26 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <455CBC18-97D8-4F62-95F1-C5DB996E5CFD@steffann.nl> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <455CBC18-97D8-4F62-95F1-C5DB996E5CFD@steffann.nl> Message-ID: Hi Sander, > Euhm, I don't think the intention is to 'opt-out' of b and c at all. Why should you then pay less as a legacy holder? > I think that all contributions to the NCC should be used to support all > activities. Good - then we agree on that part. >The amount going to b and c should be a percentage of a (which > is the core function of the NCC). I do not understand > The differences between LIRs and DAUs are in part (a). LIRs can get > allocations form the NCC, Not really - there is no more v4 space, remember. Legacy holders can also get v6 space - which I would encourage. if they already have v6 space trough an existing LIR - thats their perfect match for a "sponsoring LIR" >make assignments to customers, Why not? I Think several of the legacy holders are doing exactly that. > get help from the > NCC with the Assisted Registry Check, be a sponsoring LIR for others etc. As a legacy holder signed up as an LIR you can get all these services from the RIPE NCC. Unless you want to "opt-out" from these services. > DAUs only get something for themselves. They aren't allowed to assign any > rights to third parties, so their registry services are much more limited. Why? IMHO Address space is address space. > (I am also thinking about 2007-01 here. For 2012-07 the DAUs bring their > own address space, so there the registry functions are much less anyway, > they just get the right to document stuff in the RIPE DB) If you look at the 2014 activity plan http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-598 page 4. Which of the lines would you take out? > We are a community, we're trying > to get the legacy resource holders back in and that includes participating > in the funding of the other functions of the RIPE NCC. Agreed, but I am not sure on how we can do that only for legacy holders without causing trouble with existing membership. And remember creating a new membership class has an implementation cost - which then must be added after From gert at space.net Tue Apr 22 22:33:08 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:33:08 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> Message-ID: <20140422203308.GX43641@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:14:31PM +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > Thus - the fee structure is not set by the policy process, but by the AGM. That is very much true, but a board that is only offering the choice between "this is not what the community asked for" and "keep the status quo which does not have it" is not particular helpful in empowering the AGM to actually decide anything. Repeat: the AGM does *not* "set fee structure". It can accept the board's proposed charging scheme, or keep the old one. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hph at oslo.net Tue Apr 22 22:41:20 2014 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:41:20 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <20140422203308.GX43641@Space.Net> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> <20140422203308.GX43641@Space.Net> Message-ID: <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> > Repeat: the AGM does *not* "set fee structure". It can accept the board's > proposed charging scheme, or keep the old one. I do not agree. When the fee structure was changed in september 2012 the board gave the AGM several options based on input from the AGM in the first half of 2012. Hans Petter From gert at space.net Tue Apr 22 22:46:42 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:46:42 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> References: <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> <20140422203308.GX43641@Space.Net> <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> Message-ID: <20140422204642.GA43641@Space.Net> Hi, On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:41:20PM +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > > Repeat: the AGM does *not* "set fee structure". It can accept the board's > > proposed charging scheme, or keep the old one. > > I do not agree. > When the fee structure was changed in september 2012 the board gave the > AGM several options based on input from the AGM in the first half of > 2012. Yes. This was one notable exception. And it happened after quite a lot of noise was made about it. Another exception was when the AP community asked for a reasonable price tag on PI networks in the context of 2007-01, and that needed quite a bit of pushing and convincing to see the light. About every other time in the last 15 years, the options to vote on the charging scheme have been "accept the new charging scheme? (yes/no)". Right here it's the same thing again: "Look what we've made up, take it or leave it". How does the AGM "set the fee structure" here? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dave.wilson at heanet.ie Tue Apr 22 23:10:29 2014 From: dave.wilson at heanet.ie (Dave Wilson) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:10:29 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> Message-ID: <5356DAC5.2030800@heanet.ie> Hi Hans Petter, On 22/04/2014 21:14, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > I guess this was to abstract for me. Ok, I'll try to be more blunt. :-) > The RIPE NCC is a membership organisation with the purpose of providing > services to its members. > > IMHO becoming a member gives you rights (like electing the board, thus > influencing the activity plan and the fee structure), taking services > gives you obligations like paying. > > Why would you want only the obligations and not the rights? Me? I don't. I'm delighted to be a member. There are others on this list who's already spoken up about why - they want to get the services they've already been getting without being members, and are willing to make a contribution toward that. The whole premise of 2012-07 was that accepting this is the best way to ensure an accurate registry. >> Not trying to be glib here but I see it as this simple: because there is >> no basis in policy for that. > > I do not understand why this should be different for legacy holders and > others. > > I do have sympathy for Randy?s point of view: it is to expensive. > But that may as well apply to new addresses just as for old addresses. I disagree, and 2012-07 is very specific about why. These were already services being provided for free to non members. This never meant that those services should be offered for free to everyone else. RIPE NCC wanted to change the rules here, not the legacy resource holders. We found what I had thought, with the consensus call last February, was an agreeable solution. > We used to have a fee structure where amount of addresses and age of > addresses affected the fee. > > This was changed by the AGM not the policy process. > > Thus - the fee structure is not set by the policy process, but by the AGM. I fully accept that the board has a responsibility that it cannot decline to ensure the financial health of the RIPE NCC. I don't accept that the policy process can never have any input on this area, just because charging is a matter for the RIPE NCC and its membership structures. The implementation of *any* policy is a matter for the RIPE NCC and its membership structures. Collision between the two could arise on any aspect of a policy. We should make every effort to avoid collision (and I know we've had problems with this lately.) But separating policy formation from any discussion about how to recover the cost exacerbates this problem. It leads to exactly the sort of situation where the charging scheme can be used to render inactive segments of policy without going back through the PDP. Best regards, Dave -- Dave Wilson, Project Manager web: www.heanet.ie HEAnet Ltd, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 tel: +353-1-660-9040 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 fax: +353-1-660 3666 From sander at steffann.nl Tue Apr 22 23:31:52 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 23:31:52 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> <20140422203308.GX43641@Space.Net> <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> Message-ID: Hi Hans Petter, >> Repeat: the AGM does *not* "set fee structure". It can accept the board's >> proposed charging scheme, or keep the old one. > > I do not agree. > When the fee structure was changed in september 2012 the board gave the > AGM several options based on input from the AGM in the first half of > 2012. Which is exactly what I would like to see again. The problem is that there currently is no choice. I would be happy if the board would give the AGM the choice between the current proposed charging scheme and an option where - the legacy resource holders get the same as with 2012-07 option 2.3 - but without a Sponsoring LIR in between - nothing more, nothing less - for a reasonable price (is ?500 reasonable? compared to the ?50 of option 2.3) - also contributing to all the other good work the NCC does - where the NCC as a whole bears the implementation cost, just like with any other policy implementation The membership fee per year for LIRs *might* be a little bit higher, but because membership fees have been going down steadily over the last couple of years and the number of members is currently around 10k I would be really surprised if this will be very noticeable for any LIR's fee. I feel that none of the current options are a good implementation of what the RIPE community got consensus on, and that scares me. As a member of the NCC I would just like to have the option to vote on what I believe is the right thing to do. I don't have any legacy resources and am currently not paid by anyone who does (I did some small projects for SURFnet in the past) so if my membership fee goes up a few euros to implement this policy then I will be paying that out of my own personal pocket and I feel it will be money well spent. I feel that Hans Petter's suggestion of giving the AGM a choice is very good. I really hope that that will be the outcome of all this. Cheers! Sander From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Apr 22 23:28:30 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 22:28:30 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] the semantics of "setting the fee structure" In-Reply-To: <20140422204642.GA43641@Space.Net> References: <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> <20140422203308.GX43641@Space.Net> <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> <20140422204642.GA43641@Space.Net> Message-ID: <0F428865-391F-4A07-BDF6-39A22F1AE462@rfc1035.com> I think something is being lost in translation. The membership determine the fee structure. Albeit one that's been worked out by the people the membership has delegated the responsibility for working that out. This is not the same thing has the membership "setting the fee structure" by deciding what the absolute values of those fees should be. That would be unworkable. Of course if the proposed fees are too high or low, the membership can vote reject the charging scheme and indirectly cause new fees to be set. From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Wed Apr 23 06:30:41 2014 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 07:30:41 +0300 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <994020addf1003b6d5e49614ad5f4b6b.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> References: <455CBC18-97D8-4F62-95F1-C5DB996E5CFD@steffann.nl> <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <455CBC18-97D8-4F62-95F1-C5DB996E5CFD@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20140423072819.01fa09d0@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 22:05 22/04/2014 +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > > The differences between LIRs and DAUs are in part (a). LIRs can get > > allocations form the NCC, > >Not really - there is no more v4 space, remember. Last I checked this is still valid: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/allocations-and-assignments/request-an-ipv4-22-from-the-last-8 -Hank From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Wed Apr 23 07:01:44 2014 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:01:44 +0300 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <20140422204642.GA43641@Space.Net> References: <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> <20140422203308.GX43641@Space.Net> <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20140423074910.050cbda8@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 22:46 22/04/2014 +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >Hi, > >On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:41:20PM +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > > > Repeat: the AGM does *not* "set fee structure". It can accept the > board's > > > proposed charging scheme, or keep the old one. > > > > I do not agree. > > When the fee structure was changed in september 2012 the board gave the > > AGM several options based on input from the AGM in the first half of > > 2012. > >Yes. This was one notable exception. And it happened after quite a lot >of noise was made about it. Another exception was when the AP community >asked for a reasonable price tag on PI networks in the context of 2007-01, >and that needed quite a bit of pushing and convincing to see the light. > >About every other time in the last 15 years, the options to vote on the >charging scheme have been "accept the new charging scheme? (yes/no)". > >Right here it's the same thing again: "Look what we've made up, take >it or leave it". How does the AGM "set the fee structure" here? In my opinion, the membership has very little influence on the membership fees or the overall budget. We might think we do, but in reality we don't. Since 2002 (when the financial reserves of RIPE NCC were 4.2MEuro on Dec 31, 2002), the budget surplus has been run up to around now 23MEuro. For the past 10 years, we have run a budget surplus and have amassed a huge stockpile of money. Why? I have no idea. Has the RIPE NCC board ever felt that membership fees could be cut by 20% across the board and to start eating away at its stockpile of cash? RIPE NCC will continue to grow its cash reserve, we will continue to bicker over inflated membership fees. -Hank From hank at efes.iucc.ac.il Wed Apr 23 07:10:37 2014 From: hank at efes.iucc.ac.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 08:10:37 +0300 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <20140422111041.GA71775@cilantro.c4inet.net> References: <53564727.5000106@heanet.ie> <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <535541E2.8060702@netability.ie> <53563EB7.90801@heanet.ie> <535640E6.8090808@netability.ie> <53564727.5000106@heanet.ie> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20140423080225.01faf168@efes.iucc.ac.il> At 12:10 22/04/2014 +0100, Sascha Luck wrote: >On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:40:39AM +0100, Dave Wilson wrote: >>The annual fee is the same, yes, but also in the 2015 charging scheme: >>"Legacy Internet resource holders that become a member do not have to pay >>a sign-up fee." So for the audience of 2012-07, becoming a LIR is a flat >>one-off ?2000 cheaper than a separate direct agreement. > >At least it makes the intention clear - the NCC wants to gain control of >these legacy resources (whereas the goal of 2012-07, AIUI, is to ensure >a way to keep resources registered, without the holders giving up >control). IMO this implementation negates many of the changes that came >out of the long debate on this proposal... Perhaps someone with a better understanding of the politics in the RIPE NCC can explain to me why consistently they have taken an anti-LRH (Legacy Resource Holder) stance? This thread is not the first time around. LRHs have volunteered their time over decades to make the Internet what it is today. If we were a bunch of LIR spam-kings, flush with Euros, I could understand the negavity but in general LRHs are academic institutes or non-profit organizations (in general). So I just don't understand (perhaps my wrong perception) why at every juncture the LRHs have to fight and argue. -Hank >rgds, >Sascha Luck From alexb at ripe.net Wed Apr 23 09:39:37 2014 From: alexb at ripe.net (Alex Band) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:39:37 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RPKI Certification for PI End Users pre-production launch Message-ID: <5A97FBC8-3A15-49ED-A3A3-82DB6090C47C@ripe.net> Hello everyone, We are getting close to the production launch of Resource Certification (RPKI) for Provider Independent End User space. Last week, we started testing with a small number of users to see if the system was behaving as desired. This was a success, and the first certificates and ROAs for PI space have been published using the production system. As there are quite some corner cases with PI space, we?d like to open up the testing group a bit more, so we can make sure we iron out any quirks before we go live. If you?d like to request a certificate and create ROAs for your PI End User address space, please contact me and we?ll guide you through the process. At the moment, you?ll have to take some manual steps. When we launch we?ll have an easy to use wizard available to help you. Kind regards, Alex Band Product Manager RIPE NCC From gert at space.net Wed Apr 23 09:43:22 2014 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 09:43:22 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20140423074910.050cbda8@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> <20140422203308.GX43641@Space.Net> <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> <5.1.1.6.2.20140423074910.050cbda8@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <20140423074322.GB43641@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 08:01:44AM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > In my opinion, the membership has very little influence on the membership > fees or the overall budget. We might think we do, but in reality we > don't. Since 2002 (when the financial reserves of RIPE NCC were 4.2MEuro > on Dec 31, 2002), the budget surplus has been run up to around now > 23MEuro. For the past 10 years, we have run a budget surplus and have > amassed a huge stockpile of money. Why? I have no idea. Has the RIPE NCC > board ever felt that membership fees could be cut by 20% across the board > and to start eating away at its stockpile of cash? Well, actually *this* is not actually fair. The membership fees have gone down quite a lot over the last 10 years, and there even has been a cash payback one year. Jochem is complaining every year that the influx of new members has been higher than expected, and thus, income is higher, while they have been good stewards and spending was lower than budgeted. It's the NCC board's duty to ensure financial stability, so "just reduce the fees to 50% and see what this will do to our reservers" is not so good. The actual proposed charging scheme is reducing the LIR fees by about that amount you've proposed (20%), btw :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hph at oslo.net Wed Apr 23 11:51:22 2014 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:51:22 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> <20140422203308.GX43641@Space.Net> <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> Message-ID: <53578D1A.5000301@oslo.net> On 22/04/2014 23:31, Sander Steffann wrote: > - for a reasonable price (is ?500 reasonable? compared to the ?50 of option 2.3) Could be from a "strategic pricing point of view) - but the cost may be higher. > The membership fee per year for LIRs*might* be a little bit higher, but because membership fees have been going down steadily over the last couple of years and the number of members is currently around 10k I would be really surprised if this will be very noticeable for any LIR's fee. If we currently have 10 000 members at 1600 EUR (proposed 2015) that gives a revenue of?16M 1000 legacy holders at 500E would give anoither 0,5M totaling 16,5M If the fees were distributed evenly it would be 1500 pr member I do not have a particulary strong feeling about the fees. My company can easily afford the 1600 over the 1500. But several new LIR who only get the /22 have expressed that they think this fee is unfairly high so they would also like to pay only 500. Personally I can live with both - but I would like to see the fee strucure easily beeing explainable. Hans Petter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Wed Apr 23 11:53:25 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:53:25 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC's reserves In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20140423074910.050cbda8@efes.iucc.ac.il> References: <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> <20140422203308.GX43641@Space.Net> <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> <5.1.1.6.2.20140423074910.050cbda8@efes.iucc.ac.il> Message-ID: <121C11FE-317F-4A5E-9712-4C362B94D5C5@rfc1035.com> On 23 Apr 2014, at 06:01, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > Since 2002 (when the financial reserves of RIPE NCC were 4.2MEuro on Dec 31, 2002), the budget surplus has been run up to around now 23MEuro. For the past 10 years, we have run a budget surplus and have amassed a huge stockpile of money. Why? The NCC holds reserves equivalent to a year's turnover (or theresabouts). Most prudently run non-profit organisations and mutuals operate on this fiscally conservative metric/policy. Examples include ccTLD registries, IXPs, trade associations and membership societies. They're usually unable to borrow money for one reason or another too, so they have to depend on their own cash resources. The rationale for maintaining reserves of around a year's turnover is that in the doomsday scenario where nobody pays their membership fees, the organisation has enough money to pay the bills and keep the lights on for a while. The reserves provide a reasonable amount of time for an orderly shutdown or for the organisation to find some other way to fund itself. The reserves also allow for stability by smoothing out any peaks or troughs in surplus/loss arising from day to day business. For instance, when the NCC has a big capital spend it could use its reserves to (part) fund that instead of putting up the membership fees or whatever. The NCC's reserves are particularly important given the current industry uncertainties. Perhaps membership will decline as a result of the v4 run-out. Maybe new LIRs will pay fees just once to get a /48 of v6 and are never heard from again. IANA's future is unclear at present and nobody knows how it will be funded or if current funding arrangements will continue. Perhaps the NCC will need to fund a bigger footprint in some parts of its service region, say Russia or the Middle East. If you think the NCC should not keep a year's turnover as reserves, you are welcome to suggest an alternate amount and have the members vote to adopt that at an AGM or EGM. That's probably a discussion for another list. > Has the RIPE NCC board ever felt that membership fees could be cut by 20% across the board and to start eating away at its stockpile of cash? It has already done something like that. A rebate was returned to the membership as a result of an unexpected windfall, the winding-up of the Personnel Fund. That would have boosted the reserves to a level well above that one year's turnover metric if the NCC had kept that chunk of member-generated cash to itself. Incidentally, membership fees were reduced at the last AGM. BTW the 2013 financial report shows the average fee per member has declined from ~?2300 in 2010-11 to ~?2000 last year. It looks to me that the NCC is already maintaining prudent cash reserves AND cutting membership fees. YMMV. From sander at steffann.nl Wed Apr 23 12:41:25 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:41:25 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <53578D1A.5000301@oslo.net> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> <20140422203308.GX43641@Space.Net> <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> <53578D1A.5000301@oslo.net> Message-ID: <18E17E3F-220B-4004-9C69-7DE294DAC075@steffann.nl> Hi, >> - for a reasonable price (is ?500 reasonable? compared to the ?50 of option 2.3) > Could be from a "strategic pricing point of view) - but the cost may be higher. Well, the ?50 is a strategic pricing point as well I guess, so I don't see that as a problem. >> The membership fee per year for LIRs *might* be a little bit higher, but because membership fees have been going down steadily over the last couple of years and the number of members is currently around 10k I would be really surprised if this will be very noticeable for any LIR's fee. > If we currently have 10 000 members at 1600 EUR (proposed 2015) that gives a revenue of?16M > 1000 legacy holders at 500E would give anoither 0,5M totaling 16,5M That assumes that lots of legacy holders take the DAU option. I think in reality most will take the ?50 option. > If the fees were distributed evenly it would be 1500 pr member > > I do not have a particulary strong feeling about the fees. My company can easily afford the 1600 over the 1500. > > But several new LIR who only get the /22 have expressed that they think this fee is unfairly high so they would also like to pay only 500. They get a /22 and can get IPv6 addresses etc. The legacy holders bring their own resources. Weird. Everybody seems to assume option 2.4 is a cheap version of becoming a member, while it is the opposite: it is an expensive version of the ?50 package... > Personally I can live with both - but I would like to see the fee strucure easily beeing explainable. Definitely! :) Sander -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Wed Apr 23 14:22:35 2014 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:22:35 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option In-Reply-To: <455CBC18-97D8-4F62-95F1-C5DB996E5CFD@steffann.nl> References: <535250DC.6090603@fud.no> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <455CBC18-97D8-4F62-95F1-C5DB996E5CFD@steffann.nl> Message-ID: <5357B08B.60309@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Hans Petter, [...] > The differences between LIRs and DAUs are in part (a). LIRs can get allocations > from the NCC, make assignments to customers, get help from the NCC with the > Assisted Registry Check, be a sponsoring LIR for others etc. DAUs only get > something for themselves. They aren't allowed to assign any rights to third > parties, so their registry services are much more limited. While I don't think it is a common activity, iirc, there are some LRHs which are doing exactly that, since quite a while. And imho, we are going to see other proposals getting tracation, which would remove even more "special things/limitations". The next one I guess is address transfer, just like the stuff for for PI. And, from my point of view, LR just *is* PI, ok, old PI. So, the farther I try to look into the future, the more the currently different colours on the address blocks, which we do love so much, will become a uniform, well - gray? Wilfried. [...] > Cheers, > Sander > > From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Fri Apr 25 11:23:01 2014 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Lindqvist Kurt Erik) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 11:23:01 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC's reserves In-Reply-To: <121C11FE-317F-4A5E-9712-4C362B94D5C5@rfc1035.com> References: <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> <20140422203308.GX43641@Space.Net> <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> <5.1.1.6.2.20140423074910.050cbda8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <121C11FE-317F-4A5E-9712-4C362B94D5C5@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <053B1AFF-1B5E-45F3-AA22-EEF6D503BF30@kurtis.pp.se> On 23 apr 2014, at 11:53, Jim Reid wrote: > On 23 Apr 2014, at 06:01, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >> Since 2002 (when the financial reserves of RIPE NCC were 4.2MEuro on Dec 31, 2002), the budget surplus has been run up to around now 23MEuro. For the past 10 years, we have run a budget surplus and have amassed a huge stockpile of money. Why? > > The NCC holds reserves equivalent to a year's turnover (or theresabouts). Most prudently run non-profit organisations and mutuals operate on this fiscally conservative metric/policy. Examples include ccTLD registries, IXPs, trade associations and membership societies. They're usually unable to borrow money for one reason or another too, so they have to depend on their own cash resources. > > The rationale for maintaining reserves of around a year's turnover is that in the doomsday scenario where nobody pays their membership fees, the organisation has enough money to pay the bills and keep the lights on for a while. The reserves provide a reasonable amount of time for an orderly shutdown or for the organisation to find some other way to fund itself. The reserves also allow for stability by smoothing out any peaks or troughs in surplus/loss arising from day to day business. For instance, when the NCC has a big capital spend it could use its reserves to (part) fund that instead of putting up the membership fees or whatever. > > The NCC's reserves are particularly important given the current industry uncertainties. Perhaps membership will decline as a result of the v4 run-out. Maybe new LIRs will pay fees just once to get a /48 of v6 and are never heard from again. IANA's future is unclear at present and nobody knows how it will be funded or if current funding arrangements will continue. Perhaps the NCC will need to fund a bigger footprint in some parts of its service region, say Russia or the Middle East. While I agree with the reasoning of keeping reserves equivalent of a years turn-over, there is a risk of a circular argument here. I.e, the real question is - why is the turn-over so high? One answer is "because the membership voted for the activity plan". Another answer could be "because the activity plan doesn't really provide a breakdown that would allow us to break out individual pieces". This means that today, one of the most effective ways for the membership to question the turn-over is to ask for a reduction in membership fees. There is no obvious way to fix this unfortunately. However, what I personally would like to see, is for the RIPE NCC board to draw up some scenarios on what would allow for a lowering of the turn-over, and which services would be affected and how. We are currently in the odd situation that as we are seeing resources depleted, we are seeing the RIPE NCC growing larger than ever. Best regards, Lindqvist Kurt Erik kurtis at kurtis.pp.se -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From nigel at titley.com Fri Apr 25 11:15:02 2014 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:15:02 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Charges for legacy holders Message-ID: <535A2796.3090208@titley.com> Dear colleagues, I'd like to provide some background on the Executive Board's decision to propose the provisions regarding charges for legacy holders in the 2015 Charging Scheme. The board discussed these at length and wanted to achieve a balance between meeting the needs of legacy holders and meeting the needs of RIPE NCC members, who the board is tasked with representing. First of all, the four options in the Charging Scheme regarding legacy space correspond directly to the four options (sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4) in Policy Proposal 2012-07: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-07 Option 2.4, according to the proposal, is for those legacy holders who meet the criteria to engage with a sponsoring LIR "but cannot find a Sponsoring LIR with which a mutually satisfactory contract of the kind mentioned in that section". The board sees this option as being for legacy holders who are*unable* to find a sponsoring LIR rather than those who*do not want* to find a sponsoring LIR. The fourth option in the Charging Scheme addresses this need to provide a direct contract for those who cannot find a sponsoring LIR with which to engage. For the RIPE NCC to provide this option, a new category of service provision will have to be established. Aside from the legal and administrative work involved, the RIPE NCC's support, operating and business systems will need to be updated. The board feels that membership should not fully subsidise the cost of this work but that the costs should mainly rest with those for whom the service is being provided. The work involved in bringing legacy holders into the membership requires little work on the RIPE NCC's part by comparison, hence the waiving of the sign-up fee. The board is also keen to keep the Charging Scheme in line with the "one-LIR, one fee" principle accepted by the membership in 2012. By charging the same fee for LIRs and those legacy holders who would like to have a direct contract with the RIPE NCC, the board believes that this does not put the RIPE NCC in a position where it is competing with its members. In 2011, when the RIPE NCC previously charged Direct Assignment Users (DAUs) who wished to have a contract directly with the RIPE NCC rather than a sponsoring LIR, the DAUs were charged the same sign-up fee as members as well as an annual fee of 1,300 euros (the same as an Extra Small LIR at the time). We believe the proposed Charging Scheme 2015 follows this precedent. The board will set aside as much time as is necessary at the upcoming General Meeting to discuss the issue of charging for services to legacy holders. If the membership feels the Charging Scheme 2015 is not acceptable and decides to vote against it, the board will discuss the issue over the Summer and present a new Charging Scheme 2015 at the Autumn GM in London. The 1,600 euro fee for LIRs proposed in the Charging Scheme would remain the same, so members can still budget for the year ahead. On a separate note, the proposed implementation plan for the RIPE Policy "RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet resource Holders" deals with the contractual changes necessary for the RIPE NCC to implement new processes and is independent of charging issues. I hope this helps you to understand the board's thinking in proposing the charging scheme. We will continue to follow discussions on the mailing list and look forward to hearing your views at the RIPE NCC Service Working Group and the RIPE NCC General Meeting on 14 May. If you would like to contact the board directly, you can email us at . Best regards, Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Fri Apr 25 16:07:34 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 15:07:34 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC's reserves In-Reply-To: <053B1AFF-1B5E-45F3-AA22-EEF6D503BF30@kurtis.pp.se> References: <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> <20140422203308.GX43641@Space.Net> <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> <5.1.1.6.2.20140423074910.050cbda8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <121C11FE-317F-4A5E-9712-4C362B94D5C5@rfc1035.com> <053B1AFF-1B5E-45F3-AA22-EEF6D503BF30@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: On 25 Apr 2014, at 10:23, Lindqvist Kurt Erik wrote: > We are currently in the odd situation that as we are seeing resources depleted, we are seeing the RIPE NCC growing larger than ever. Indeed. It's decidedly odd. There must be some sort of alternate Parkinson's law which explains why the NCC's head count and budget increases as the number resources it manages get depleted. However the NCC is not just what Daniel calls "a number factory". There are all these other services as well -- too many IMO -- and I think this WG might have some responsibility in that area. :-) From ulrich.schmid at switch.ch Fri Apr 25 16:48:30 2014 From: ulrich.schmid at switch.ch (Ulrich Schmid) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:48:30 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Charges for legacy holders In-Reply-To: <535A2796.3090208@titley.com> References: <535A2796.3090208@titley.com> Message-ID: <535A75BE.8070902@switch.ch> Hi on 25.04.14 11:15 Nigel Titley wrote: > > First of all, the four options in the Charging Scheme regarding > legacy space correspond directly to the four options (sections 2.1, > 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4) in Policy Proposal 2012-07: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-07 > >From the Charging Scheme 2015: - A separate charge of EUR 50 will apply for legacy Internet resources that are registered via a sponsoring LIR. We have some Universities which got several /24 (C-classes) within a more or less continuous address range. Currently they are registered as single /24 ranges in the Ripe DB. How will these legacy resources counted and/or will it be possible to combine as much as possible /24 to one address range? Best regards, Ulrich -- SWITCH -------------------------- Ulrich Schmid, Network Engineer Werdstrasse 2, P.O. Box, 8021 Zurich, Switzerland phone +41 44 268 15 30, direct +41 44 268 15 34 ulrich.schmid at switch.ch, http://www.switch.ch From nigel at titley.com Fri Apr 25 23:33:07 2014 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 22:33:07 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Charges for legacy holders In-Reply-To: <535A75BE.8070902@switch.ch> References: <535A2796.3090208@titley.com> <535A75BE.8070902@switch.ch> Message-ID: <535AD493.7050709@titley.com> On 25/04/14 15:48, Ulrich Schmid wrote: > Hi > > on 25.04.14 11:15 Nigel Titley wrote: >> First of all, the four options in the Charging Scheme regarding >> legacy space correspond directly to the four options (sections 2.1, >> 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4) in Policy Proposal 2012-07: >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-07 >> > From the Charging Scheme 2015: > - A separate charge of EUR 50 will apply for legacy Internet resources > that are registered via a sponsoring LIR. > > We have some Universities which got several /24 (C-classes) within a > more or less continuous address range. Currently they are registered as > single /24 ranges in the Ripe DB. > How will these legacy resources counted and/or will it be possible to > combine as much as possible /24 to one address range? > I imagine that the same principle used to count PI space would be used. And I see no reason for *not* being able to combine contiguous blocks into one resource. Nigel From mansaxel at besserwisser.org Sat Apr 26 10:12:17 2014 From: mansaxel at besserwisser.org (=?utf-8?B?TcOlbnM=?= Nilsson) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 10:12:17 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC's reserves In-Reply-To: References: <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> <20140422203308.GX43641@Space.Net> <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> <5.1.1.6.2.20140423074910.050cbda8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <121C11FE-317F-4A5E-9712-4C362B94D5C5@rfc1035.com> <053B1AFF-1B5E-45F3-AA22-EEF6D503BF30@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <20140426081216.GF13966@besserwisser.org> Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] NCC's reserves Date: Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 03:07:34PM +0100 Quoting Jim Reid (jim at rfc1035.com): > On 25 Apr 2014, at 10:23, Lindqvist Kurt Erik wrote: > > > We are currently in the odd situation that as we are seeing resources depleted, we are seeing the RIPE NCC growing larger than ever. > > Indeed. It's decidedly odd. There must be some sort of alternate Parkinson's law which explains why the NCC's head count and budget increases as the number resources it manages get depleted. > > However the NCC is not just what Daniel calls "a number factory". There are all these other services as well -- too many IMO -- and I think this WG might have some responsibility in that area. :-) The need of managing the decreasing pool might involve an increased work effort per address block transferred between entities. Whenever I find that I'm up against organisational challenges from the NCC I go and read the first meeting minutes from something that could seem to be a completely different organisation: As a working title for the activities the meeting adopted the name RIPE (Reseaux IP Europeen). ... 7 Network Registration All participants agree that there should be some sort of registration of the networks taking part in the European IP net. This way any problems that may occur can be signaled to the responsible person. It was stressed that this registration activity is just a matter of keeping the registry up to date: in no way it should constitute some sort of authority. A 'whois' style of information service was suggested as a useful tool to access registry information. (Action: Anders Hillbo) Also a list of gateways should be created, describing which networks are authorised to use particular gateways. No formal policy statements were made and there should be no thresholds for organisations who wish to connect to the net, except for a description of the network and information about contact addresses to be entered into the registry. The need was recognised to write a document describing the ethics and acceptable use of the European IP network. (Action: all) What happened? -- M?ns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 I am a traffic light, and Alan Ginzberg kidnapped my laundry in 1927! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From nigel at titley.com Sat Apr 26 13:23:14 2014 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 12:23:14 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC's reserves In-Reply-To: <20140426081216.GF13966@besserwisser.org> References: <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> <20140422203308.GX43641@Space.Net> <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> <5.1.1.6.2.20140423074910.050cbda8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <121C11FE-317F-4A5E-9712-4C362B94D5C5@rfc1035.com> <053B1AFF-1B5E-45F3-AA22-EEF6D503BF30@kurtis.pp.se> <20140426081216.GF13966@besserwisser.org> Message-ID: <535B9722.3060602@titley.com> On 26/04/14 09:12, M?ns Nilsson wrote: > Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] NCC's reserves Date: Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 03:07:34PM +0100 Quoting Jim Reid (jim at rfc1035.com): >> On 25 Apr 2014, at 10:23, Lindqvist Kurt Erik wrote: >> >>> We are currently in the odd situation that as we are seeing resources depleted, we are seeing the RIPE NCC growing larger than ever. >> Indeed. It's decidedly odd. There must be some sort of alternate Parkinson's law which explains why the NCC's head count and budget increases as the number resources it manages get depleted. >> >> However the NCC is not just what Daniel calls "a number factory". There are all these other services as well -- too many IMO -- and I think this WG might have some responsibility in that area. :-) > > The need of managing the decreasing pool might involve an increased > work effort per address block transferred between entities. Whenever > I find that I'm up against organisational challenges from the NCC I go > and read the first meeting minutes from something that could seem to be > a completely different organisation: > > As a working title for the activities the meeting adopted the name RIPE > (Reseaux IP Europeen). > > ... > > 7 Network Registration > All participants agree that there should be some sort of registration of > the networks taking part in the European IP net. This way any problems > that may occur can be signaled to the responsible person. It was stressed > that this registration activity is just a matter of keeping the registry > up to date: in no way it should constitute some sort of authority. A > 'whois' style of information service was suggested as a useful tool to > access registry information. (Action: Anders Hillbo) > > Also a list of gateways should be created, describing which networks > are authorised to use particular gateways. > > No formal policy statements were made and there should be no thresholds > for organisations who wish to connect to the net, except for a description > of the network and information about contact addresses to be entered > into the registry. The need was recognised to write a document describing > the ethics and acceptable use of the European IP network. (Action: all) > > What happened? The world changed Nigel From niall.oreilly at ucd.ie Sat Apr 26 17:16:34 2014 From: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 16:16:34 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Charges for legacy holders In-Reply-To: <535A2796.3090208@titley.com> References: <535A2796.3090208@titley.com> Message-ID: At Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:15:02 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > I'd like to provide some background on the Executive Board's decision to > propose the provisions regarding charges for legacy holders in the 2015 > Charging Scheme. Thanks, Nigel. It's really helpful to have a matter-of-fact and authoritative explanation of the Executive Board's thinking on these charges. I'ld like to react very briefly at this stage, mindful of the saying, "Least said, soonest mended." I'll be glad to expand the discussion as necessary, but am anxious to avoid opening rat-holes in the run-up to RIPE68. > The board discussed these at length and wanted to achieve a balance > between meeting the needs of legacy holders and meeting the needs of > RIPE NCC members, who the board is tasked with representing. I feel that the charging scheme proposed is not the only one which could achieve this balance, and that a significantly lower price point for option 2.4 would be reasonable. Best regards, Niall From niall.oreilly at ucd.ie Sat Apr 26 17:35:52 2014 From: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 16:35:52 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Charges for legacy holders In-Reply-To: <535A2796.3090208@titley.com> References: <535A2796.3090208@titley.com> Message-ID: At Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:15:02 +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: > > Option 2.4, according to the proposal, is for those legacy holders who > meet the criteria to engage with a sponsoring LIR "but cannot find a > Sponsoring LIR with which a mutually satisfactory contract of the kind > mentioned in that section". The board sees this option as being for > legacy holders who are *unable* to find a sponsoring LIR rather than > those who *do not want* to find a sponsoring LIR. I've noticed two things here. The more significant one is that we'll need to establish a common understanding of just what the distinction should be between *unable* and *do not want*. The other is that the passage cited is grammatically incomplete, as it is also in the on-line copy of ripe-605. This is likely my responsibility as editor of the proposal. I offer my apologies and will arrange to have it corrected. Best regards, Niall From randy at psg.com Sat Apr 26 19:34:06 2014 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 10:34:06 -0700 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC's reserves In-Reply-To: References: <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> <20140422203308.GX43641@Space.Net> <5.1.1.6.2.20140423074910.050cbda8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <121C11FE-317F-4A5E-9712-4C362B94D5C5@rfc1035.com> <053B1AFF-1B5E-45F3-AA22-EEF6D503BF30@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: > Indeed. It's decidedly odd. There must be some sort of alternate > Parkinson's law which explains why the NCC's head count and budget > increases as the number resources it manages get depleted. the resources they manage are not shrinking. they are charging rent for the same integers. funny business that. randy From hph at oslo.net Mon Apr 28 14:27:41 2014 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:27:41 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC's reserves In-Reply-To: <053B1AFF-1B5E-45F3-AA22-EEF6D503BF30@kurtis.pp.se> References: <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> <20140422203308.GX43641@Space.Net> <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> <5.1.1.6.2.20140423074910.050cbda8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <121C11FE-317F-4A5E-9712-4C362B94D5C5@rfc1035.com> <053B1AFF-1B5E-45F3-AA22-EEF6D503BF30@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <535E493D.8010205@oslo.net> On 25/04/2014 11:23, Lindqvist Kurt Erik wrote: > "because the activity plan doesn't really provide a breakdown that would allow us to break out individual pieces". Have you had a look at the activity plan http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-598/at_download/pdf page 4? -hph From stolpe at resilans.se Mon Apr 28 14:41:59 2014 From: stolpe at resilans.se (Daniel Stolpe) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:41:59 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC's reserves In-Reply-To: <535E493D.8010205@oslo.net> References: <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> <20140422203308.GX43641@Space.Net> <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> <5.1.1.6.2.20140423074910.050cbda8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <121C11FE-317F-4A5E-9712-4C362B94D5C5@rfc1035.com> <053B1AFF-1B5E-45F3-AA22-EEF6D503BF30@kurtis.pp.se> <535E493D.8010205@oslo.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > > On 25/04/2014 11:23, Lindqvist Kurt Erik wrote: >> "because the activity plan doesn't really provide a breakdown that would >> allow us to break out individual pieces". > > Have you had a look at the activity plan > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-598/at_download/pdf > page 4? Page 4 is a big improvement eventually. But still, if we consider "1" to be the core business, it is not easy to question the other almost 100 FTE's. As in most membership societies, a vast majority do not vote at all. And as long as the membership fees seem to go down, most of the members who do will be happy enough. I like the idea of a "what if" scenario. What if we had to cut costs say 10% or 20%? Regards, Daniel Stolpe _________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe at resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm From nigel at titley.com Mon Apr 28 22:11:28 2014 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:11:28 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC's reserves In-Reply-To: References: <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> <296F366C-5CDE-4FE7-B00B-41E53BF31C10@steffann.nl> <5354DBCF.7070802@fud.no> <46E9FD4F-D11B-4941-A5AA-BC96DA083E04@steffann.nl> <53550AE1.4040805@fud.no> <5356816F.8010901@oslo.net> <535690CB.8000903@heanet.ie> <20140422203308.GX43641@Space.Net> <2e0caf4c44774dd3c0b99c90da2ae016.squirrel@epost.oslo.net> <5.1.1.6.2.20140423074910.050cbda8@efes.iucc.ac.il> <121C11FE-317F-4A5E-9712-4C362B94D5C5@rfc1035.com> <053B1AFF-1B5E-45F3-AA22-EEF6D503BF30@kurtis.pp.se> <535E493D.8010205@oslo.net> Message-ID: <535EB5F0.4020903@titley.com> On 28/04/14 13:41, Daniel Stolpe wrote: > > > > I like the idea of a "what if" scenario. What if we had to cut costs > say 10% or 20%? Axel has an annual cost cutting target, set by the board, which directly affects his salary and bonus. Typically this is in the 10% region. It is weighted by the number of members and the retail price index. Nigel From bijal.sanghani at euro-ix.net Tue Apr 29 17:36:19 2014 From: bijal.sanghani at euro-ix.net (Bijal Sanghani) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 16:36:19 +0100 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] NCC Services WG Draft Agenda - RIPE 68 Message-ID: <51936CF3-C8C8-4847-B888-A3E4618624FE@euro-ix.net> Greetings, Please see below and online draft agenda for the NCC Services WG. https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/services-wg/ === Date: Wednesday 14 May 2014 Time: 16.00 - 17.45 Chair: Kurtis Lindqvist Co-Chair: Bijal Sanghani A. Administrative Matters (5 minutes) Welcome Select a scribe Finalise agenda Approve minutes from RIPE 67 B. Hijacking and Due Diligence - Andrew de la Haye and Athina Fragkouli (35 minutes) C. RIPE NCC Update - Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) D. External Relations Update - Paul Rendek, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) E. Do we need more audting on RIPE NCC projects? RIPE ATLAS example - Piotr Strzy?ewski, (10 mins) F. Report on 2007-01 - Andrea Cima, RIPE NCC (10 minutes) G. Policy Implementation Report: - 2012-07 - RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders - 2012-08 - Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Resources - 2013-04 - Resource Certification for non-RIPE NCC Members - NCC Services WG Chair (5 minutes) H. Open Microphone Session Z. AOB === See you in Warsaw! Best regards, NCC Services WG Chairs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From denis at ripe.net Tue Apr 29 18:11:58 2014 From: denis at ripe.net (Denis Walker) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:11:58 +0200 Subject: [ncc-services-wg] RIPE Database Release 1.73 Message-ID: <535FCF4E.5040303@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC is pleased to announce the RIPE Database software release 1.73 to the Release Candidate (RC) environment. For information about features, changes and how this release might affect your operations, please see the release notes: https://www.ripe.net/data-tools/db/release-notes/ripe-database-release-1.73 Major features introduced in this release include the: -Addition of a "sponsoring-org:" attribute for End User resources -Addition of a "status:" attribute for all AUT-NUM objects -Change of "status:" values for all legacy (early registration) INETNUM objects to 'LEGACY' This release also fixes a number of issues. More details are available in the release notes. Where necessary, data in the RC Database has been changed to reflect the new/changed attributes. Please check your data and test your implementation in the RC environment. More information about the RC environment is available online: https://www.ripe.net/data-tools/db/release-notes/rc-release-candidate-environment We look forward to any questions or comments you might have. Regards, Denis Walker Business Analyst RIPE NCC Database Team