[address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)

Hi Bernhard,

Bernhard Schmidt wrote:

> 
> To be honest, my intention to see 2007-01 put in action is to solve the
> imbalance imposed by the current billing scheme (PA has a recurring, for
> most networks not too small price tag attached, PI is basically free).
> Don't tell me PI is not PA because you cannot assign it to other
> endusers, there are dozens of ISPs that run entirely on PI.
> 

The proposal itself states that end users will be subject to a fee. Based on
your point above I take it that you favor interpreting this is "a non-trivial
fee", and it seems to me that you implicitly suggest it should be higher than
the costs the RIPE NCC will incur directly from processing such end user
assignments.

> Another goal, I might be sticking something into a hornet's nest here,
> is to have a pricetag imposed on the only thing that costs money to all
> service-providers worldwide, and that is routingslots. I've heard from a
> lot of people who actually want this, but I don't see any technical sane
> way to achieve it. The closest thing are recurring fees for PI space. I
> know this doesn't handle deaggregation on it's own, but it's a start.
> 

A point you further reinforce above.

> Regarding the "new contract" thing. In my eyes, the cause with PIv4 is
> lost anyway. I want this for PIv6 from the start, and for new PIv4
> assignments to be fair. If it is legally possible to push old resource
> holders into contracts with recurring fees, do it, if it isn't then don't.
> 
> So basically what I would like to see is the following:
> - a recurring fee that is imposed to all PIv6 and new PIv4 assignments
> - the contract might be with a LIR or with RIPE, with substantial higher
> cost for dealing with RIPE directly
> - there will be _no_ scoring system (categories or whatever) that lowers
> the cost per assignment when a LIR/enduser is managing more of them. At
> Dec. 31st every PI assignment in contractual relation with RIPE NCC
> directly costs y EUR billed to the enduser, every PI assignment in
> contractual relation with a LIR costs x EUR (0 < x < y) billed to the
> LIR WITHOUT REBATE. The LIR can decide by itself how much it adds for
> handling the contract when billing it to the enduser. This should take
> care of the "Discount LIRs".
> - there should be some contract with existing PI holders. If there is
> consensus not to bill old assignments retroactively or if the legal
> advisors decide it's too risky, fine with me. Have a contract to track
> resources, but don't bill them. If however existing assignments are to
> be transferred the normal contract should be required.
> 

While you indeed address some of the concerns contained in my initial post,

> So basically, bill new resources, get a sensible approach with old
> resources and finally get PIv6 out of the door.
> 

and while I don't see this draft as an explicit condition to getting IPv6 out
the door (although I do see the benefits of doing so) and its intention is clear
to me,

> I think 2007-01 v4.0 is the right tool to do this, and I want to see
> this soon. You may shoot now.

you also raise another concern which I was somewhat reluctant to voice so far.

The draft itself is reasonably concise and deals with little more than the need
to set up a contractual relationship between either RIPE NCC or individual LIRs
and end users. When looking at it in this limited scope, it indeed appears to
have reached consensus and at the moment has few to no opposing arguments.

The trouble, however, lies in the details. For example, while Shane's take on
the implementation of this proposal is that it will result in no cost or minimal
cost for end users - your interpretation seems to be one of an opportunity to
enforce something akin to a routing slot tax which would be sufficiently high to
discourage waste; two quite conflicting points of view stemming from the
implementation of the the very same policy document!

It's easy to dismiss these concerns as contractual, operational, and financial
issues which are outside the policy scope of the proposal. However, the "carte
blanche" nature of this policy draft differentiates it from most policy documents.

Once this proposal is passed, the set of goals which will be achieved and the
methods employed to achieve them can vary a great deal. Some of them are fairly
controversial. Aggravating this concern further is the very nature of the WG
work flow in that once this policy is approved and RIPE NCC is tasked with its
implementation, it will lose some of its transparency by becoming an internal
operational issue.

This combination of factors makes the ultimate outcome of the implementation of
this proposal somewhat hard to predict. Thus, I still feel this proposal could
benefit from any combination of:

- A list of arguments and counter-arguments the currently expected
implementation is subject to, contained within the draft or as a separate document.

- A commitment by RIPE NCC to consult this WG on an exceptional and ongoing
basis if this proposal is passed to ensure the operational aspects are aligned
with the goals of this WG's members and the community at large.

- A set of more concrete draft documents describing the operational outcome from
the implementation of this proposal in sufficient detail to allow a voting
member to make an informed decision.

> 
> Bernhard
> 
--
Respectfully yours,

David Monosov