[ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option

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