[ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hans Petter Holen
hph at oslo.net
Tue Apr 22 22:05:26 CEST 2014
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
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]