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

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