[address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)

Hi Tore,

On 9/30/13 11:21 PM, Tore Anderson wrote:
[...]
> Q: They wouldn't want to pay the full membership price for being LIRs!
> A: We don't have to make them. It could be possible to be a RIPE region
> LIR even though you're not a direct/full member of the RIPE NCC. RIPE
> NCC members could be seen as "sponsors of LIR status" instead of
> "sponsors for PI blocks". It could even cost the same €50 as before.
>
> This proposal, the way I see it, creates a new class of End Users who
> are for all practical purposes LIRs. Quoting the definition from the
> policy document:
>
> 2.1 Internet Registry (IR)
>
> An Internet Registry is an organisation that is responsible for
> distributing IP address space to its members or customers and for
> registering those distributions. IRs are classified according to their
> primary function and territorial scope within the hierarchical structure
> depicted in the figure above.
>
> [...]
>
> 2.3 Local Internet Registry (LIR)
>
> A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an IR that primarily sub-allocates
> address space to the users of the network services that it provides.
>
>
> If you look at the figure in section 2.0, the "End User" box on the
> right adjacent to the "Sponsoring LIR" one ... that End User is an LIR.
> It exactly matches the definition, at least - the only difference
> appears to be in the name. If it walks like an LIR, talks like an LIR...
>
> So let's try replacing the "End User" label on that box with "LIR". Now
> the two trees below the RIPE NCC are identical, except for the presence
> of the "Sponsoring LIR" box on the right. But that's a
> contractual/billing-related mechanism that doesn't really have anything
> to do with the internet registry system per se. So I think we can just
> as well remove it from the address policy¹, and we are left with two
> completely identical hierarchies.
>
> [1] Not saying it should be removed as a contractual/billing-related
> mechanism as currently used, but I don't think it is necessary to
> specify it in the policy document just like we don't specify the RIPE
> NCC fees in there either.

LIR is already a well defined term and making everyone an LIR (while 
they are not an actual LIR) would confuse more than fix things.

I agree that we may want to rename the End User to something else as it 
is some sort of IR, but making it an LIR (with less service and power) 
is a bad idea. Would you also give everyone the right to vote at the AGM?

Let's not go there. We have LIRs and we all know what these are. Let's 
find a better name/definition of the entity currently called End User.

>
>> This won't fly.  We need to be practical about a workable policy proposal
>> here.  Whether we like it or not, there is a strong history of cost
>> differentiation in terms of how ip addresess are handled, and I don't see a
>> practical way of levelling the field within the constraints of what's
>> workable and what we'd ultimately like.
>
> I'm not saying we should start charging the traditional PI holders more
> than we do today. Just that if we're going to grant them "LIR powers",
> which this proposal does (and I don't disagree with that), we might as
> well start calling them "LIRs" as well. A spade is a spade.

No, I do not agree to call them LIR, the LIR is well defined. You are 
right, we maybe should not call them End Users either, let's work on 
redefining the End User to something else.

Regarding the payment fees, we can not decide anything in this WG 
anyway, I'd like to ask everyone to either hold on to this discussion 
for the GM in Athens or open the discussion on the 
members-discuss at ripe.net mailing list.

thanks,
elvis