[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016

Hi Nick,

I understand your reasoning and we had this discussion at the GM at the 
previous meeting.

On 25/03/15 12:59, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Elvis,
>
> the past history of charging/not charging for ASNs is unfortunate, but what
> happened in the past cannot be changed.  What's important now is putting in
> a stable long-term mechanism for the future.
We have a different understanding of what is important. To me, what is 
important is that we do not keep changing from one year to an other (or 
every 3 years) the charging scheme. Doing so will only say that the RIPE 
NCC Board is unpredictable in what they will do with the charging scheme 
and will affect businesses of all the members of the RIPE NCC.

If things change every few years, off course, the LIRs will blame it on 
the RIPE NCC (and not the Board or some of it's members) and that will 
lead to the NCC having a bad name amongs the LIR's customers.
>
> Mandating the NCC to chase sponsoring LIRs about their customers' ASN usage
> habits is massively inefficient from an organisational point of view and
> from the point of view of a LIR, it sounds like yet more irritation and
> hassle.  If you like irritation and hassle, fine.  Personally I could do
> with less in my life.
Let's agree to disagree. I think it will be more efficient if the RIPE 
NCC will ping (maybe yearly) the Sponsoring LIRs of ASNs not in use and 
ask them if any of those customers will want to return the unused 
resources.
>
> We can all acknowledge that no garbage collection mechanism is going to be
> 100% efficient.  Charging a minimal fee is a pretty good balance between
> end-goal efficiency and cost recovery.
Again, I do not agree with this point of view and it seems that from the 
feedback at the GM, the discussions on the hallway and the e-mails on 
this mailing list - there is no consensus on your suggestion. It is not 
only me saying this, it is also the Board.
> It also creates the situation that
> the decision to return unused ASNs is entirely up to the LIR /end-user and
> that the NCC doesn't need to get involved in that decision making process.
Well, the decision to return unused ASNs will always be the one of the 
organisation to which the ASN was assigned to. Either way, their 
Sponsoring LIR will still need to open a ticket with the RIPE NCC and 
the organisation will be required to confirm the return of the 
resource.  If the RIPE NCC does the first step or if the LIR does the 
first step, it does not really matter.

Furthermore, I am not sure if you are aware of the current procedures 
and the inefficient way the RIPE NCC handles independent resource 
returns/reclaims/de-registrations at this moment. Let me tell you my 
experience.. Let's say we do as you recommend and we add a charge per 
ASN. Then a company stops paying for the maintenance of an ASN to an 
LIR. The LIR will notify the RIPE NCC that they do not want to be the 
Sponsoring LIR for the resource (because the end user stopped paying). 
 From that moment, you are saying that the garbage collection mechanism 
should start. The RIPE NCC will notify the end user that they need to 
find an other Sponsoring LIR (and pay for the maintenance) and give the 
end user about a month (I think it's 20 working days) to do so. Then, 
the RIPE NCC will start a de-registration process that requires 
continuous messages sent to the end user, then to anyone that may have 
their contact details - a process that lasts 3 months and takes a lot of 
time from the RIPE NCC's IPRAs.

Do you really think this process will be better than the one where the 
RIPE NCC notifies the involved parties that an ASN is not in use and 
could be returned and leave it for those parties to reply and decide?

The NCC currently chases the independent resource holders and that 
process is painful for all the parties, my suggestion is not to create 
the same hassle for ASNs and instead ask the NCC to just ping the 
organisations that do not use the ASNs that were assigned.. just ping 
and not chase..
>
> Please bear in mind that the RIPE NCC is a registry, not a nanny.
noted :)

Regards,
Elvis
> Nick
>
>
> On 25/03/2015 00:55, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> not sure if this message will get to the mailing list (a previous one
>> did not because I was subscribed with an other -generic- e-mail address
>> to the members-discuss mailing list).
>>
>> A charge per ASN is, from my point of view, not a very effective garbage
>> collection mechanism.
>>
>> Additionally, changing the charging scheme again by adding a fee in
>> 2016, after it was initially added in 2009 and removed in 2012 shows
>> only an inconsistent Board with not a clear idea of the charging scheme.
>> Once we (the members) have taken a decision, let's not change it
>> (because some policy may in the future be otherwise abused) unless
>> something has happened to request us to rethink the charging scheme.
>>
>> I think we need to find a method by which the RIPE NCC and/or the LIR
>> can do the garbage collection/cleanup.
>> One simple method I can think of is by asking the RIPE NCC to contact
>> the (Sponsoring) LIR when an ASN disappears from the global routing
>> table and ask if that ASN can be deleted/returned/reclaimed/reused. This
>> could easily be done in the LIR portal (automated process) or by e-mail
>> (human - IPRA).
>> I do not want to mandate the NCC to chase every ASN not visible in the
>> routing table, I am suggesting to mandate the NCC to politely contact
>> the (Sponsoring) LIR, maybe once a year, and ask them if any of their
>> (or their customers') not in use ASNs could be returned to the free
>> pool.
>>
>> my 2 cents
>> /elvis
>>
>> Excuse the briefness of this mail, it was sent from a mobile device.
>>
>>> On 25 Mar 2015, at 01:33, Fahad AlShirawi <fahad at gccix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> :) we are both getting older maybe? Alright so... charging scheme stays, and we open an agenda point to consider how best to clean the garbage at the next meeting?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
>>>    Original Message
>>> From: Sander Steffann
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 25 March 2015 03:25
>>> To: Fahad AlShirawi
>>> Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net
>>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> Fair enough. My memory isn't what it used to be am getting old and working on a phone means I can't reference stuff easily :)
>>>>
>>>> So what's the general feeling here?
>>> Well, after all the feedback I think we're trying to solve this problem the wrong way. There must be better ways than fiddling with the charging scheme. See my message to Sascha.
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>> Sander
>>>
>>> P.S. Yes, I know, I seem to be changing my mind a bit, how did that happen? :)
>>>
>>>
>>> ----
>>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss
>>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page:
>>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
>>>
>>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
>> ----
>> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss
>> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page:
>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
>>
>> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
>>


-- 
<http://v4escrow.net> 	


  Elvis Daniel Velea


    Chief Executive Officer

Email: elvis at V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis at v4escrow.net>
US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914
EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 1914

Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in:

This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain 
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have 
received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20150325/9b2414d9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5043 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20150325/9b2414d9/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11971 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20150325/9b2414d9/attachment-0001.png>