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

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