[address-policy-wg] fairness and legacy resources

El 21/10/20 12:16, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Jim Reid" <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de jim at rfc1035.com> escribió:


    > On 21 Oct 2020, at 10:07, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> wrote:
    > 
    > It is not fair that legacy holders are not bind to policies and services (and their cost) from the RIRs the same way as non-legacy.

    Maybe, maybe not. There are plenty of other far more expensive cost centres in the NCC’s budget that are not fairly shared across the membership and nobody’s whining about them. Just look at all those cheapskates who get DNS and whois lookups from the NCC for free. Many of them aren’t even from the RIPE community. They should be paying. :-)

[Jordi] Not saying not to that. It is a community/membership decision to keep offering those services, and do it for free or find a way to only offer for free to members and a subscription fee for others, etc.

    > We "rewind history" in real life all the time. There are laws (and customs) that as time passes, we discover that were wrong or broken or need to be adapted to new times

    That’s not rewriting history Jordi. You should know better.

    Whenever customs and laws change, the new measures do not apply to whatever had happened in the past. They apply to the present and future. For instance, suppose a government changes increases income tax. They don’t make you pay the increased rate for all the preceding years before the rate went up.

[Jordi] No, is not always like that. If there is a new tax for something, of course typically you will not pay for the past years, but you will pay for the new years since the tax is established. If you don't want to pay that tax, then you can release the "resource" that is covered by that tax. In Spain there are many examples of that, and I'm sure this is true for many other countries worldwide.

    > Transfers are a way to correct that, as it has been said (and done in other regions). And every day it has less sense to keep the resources legacy: you need other resources from the RIR (like IPv6, other ASN, etc.), so then you sign the service agreement.

    I’ve already explained why that’s utterly wrong.

    If you think legacy holders should pay something, I maybe agree with that in principle. [But definitely not signing a service agreement which forces a legacy holder to become an LIR.] And maybe that’s a discussion that could be had once there was some hard data.

    My gut feel is the cost to the NCC of looking after legacy space is negligible and not worth worrying about. It’ll barely be a rounding error in the Registry Services budget. Setting up and running a system to recover that insignificant amount of money from legacy holders will cost far more: contracts, invoicing, staff time, etc. Assuming there was a legal basis for imposing those charges. Which there almost certainly isn’t.

[Jordi] The point is that, as I said, RIPE region is somehow "special" on that, so even if here could be negligible, it not in other regions.

    OTOH devising such a system will provide endless opportunities for the shed-painting and rat-holing that some members of our community *love*. Who cares about the underlying issue? Just think of all the months we can waste bickering over the policy and process minutiae.

    In any case, the RIPE community and the NCC membership simply shouldn’t attempt this sort of micro-management. That’s the path to madness: “I want X EUR off my fee because I didn’t use any of the training courses last year. Or RIPEstat. Or take part in a hackathon. Or update my database entries. Or....”.

[Jordi] No discussion on this point, fully agree!

    It may well be reasonable to say something’s not fair. For some definition of fair. But it can sometimes be even more unreasonable to attempt to correct that -- extra costs, more complexity, higher administrative overheads, -- etc it simply isn’t worth the effort. Or addressing that unfairness creates other unfairnesses elsewhere. Sometimes pragmatic decisions have to be made because these are the least-worst solutions for the perceived level of unfairness.

[Jordi] Agree as well ... however, sometimes is not a matter of how much is the cost, but about is or looks as simply unfair. And yes, resolving an unfairness here may create an unbalance in the other side, but this is real life, nothing different.

    > RIPE region is a bit special on that, in the sense that we have a single fee for everything, but in other regions is not the same way, and it is somehow proportional to the "amount" of resources you hold. I also think that's unfair. Of course, that's a different discussion ... 

    Indeed. And a discussion to be had somewhere else, perhaps at the NCC’s AGM. The NCC used to have a byzantine charging scheme for setting membership fees based (roughly) on the member’s allocation of NCC-issued resources. Broadly speaking, the biggest LIRs paid more. However that system was hard to administer and created too many problems. So the membership applied common sense and voted to have a flat fee.

[Jordi] Not a member, so can't bring it back to the AGM ... but what it makes sense for 1 out of 5 RIRs, seems to be the contrary as in the case of the other 4. Not convinced that's common sense!

    If you want legacy holders to pay, both the RIPE and NCC policy making machinery is open to you.

[Jordi] Undoubtedly, it's already "on the works" ...





**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.