[ncc-services-wg] Legacy resources: some idea of what will be in the policy proposal

The transcript of the RIPE NCC Services WG session at RIPE 64 (https://ripe64.ripe.net/archives/steno/16/) records the following exchange:

> AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Nigel Titley, Chairman of the board of the RIPE NCC. Just a very quick note. The charging scheme task force has delivered its report. The board is due to consider that report starting in June of this year. Could I urge you to at least give us some idea of what your policy might say fairly early on so that we can consider that? 
> 
> NIALL O'REILLY: Noted.

	The group of us working on drafting a policy proposal have identified most
	of the key elements which will be included, but a presentable proposal 
	won't be ready without some more work.  In order not to miss the 
	opportunity which Nigel kindly took care to point out, here is "some idea
	of what [the] policy [proposal] might say".

	I expect that the main elements of the forthcoming policy proposal will
	include the following.

	Current inaccuracies in the RIPE database should be corrected without
	additional formality, and specifically without forcing a contractual
	relationship.

	Each legacy resource holder should have the choice of registering holdings
	either directly as a "small" member or indirectly as a customer of a
	sponsoring LIR.  We understand that this matches current NCC thinking.

	Clarity is needed as to which RIR policies will apply to legacy resources.
	It is not sufficient to declare these resources subject to "all" policies,
	as the RIR may not have authority to apply certain policies in respect of
	legacy resources.  It will be necessary to itemize which policies are 
	applicable.

	Whenever an "obvious" potential sponsoring LIR can be identified, the NCC
	should request this LIR to make contact with the resource holder rather
	than do so directly.  Such cases might be identified either from existing
	RIPE DB records or from current routing information.  There is specific
	concern in the NREN community that NCC members' relationships with their
	customers be respected in this way.
	
	We gave more detailed attention to the question of charging, as we
	understand that this is a current priority of the RIPE NCC Board.

	We are aware of two current documents relating to charging: one, the report
	of the Charging Scheme Task Force (CSTF);  the other, a limited-circulation
	document co-authored by a group for which Daniel Karrenberg has been acting 
	as editor.  The latter document may perhaps be most conveniently described
	as a memorandum for the Board, giving an example of how the recommendations
	of the CSTF might concretely be implemented.

	We welcome the specific attention given in this "Karrenberg document" to 
	the situation of legacy resource holders, and particularly the idea of
	encouraging engagement of legacy resource holders by waiving the sign-up
	fee.

	We also appreciate the suggestion made at the TERENA conference in
	Reykjavík recently by Mirjam Kühne, representing the RIPE NCC, that 
	fees would not be charged in respect of legacy resources.  Some
	clarification as to the conditions attached to this offer, including
	an indication of how long it will continue, would be helpful.

	Although it is certain to be superseded, we have used RIPE-499, which 
	documents the 2011 charging scheme, as the starting point for indicating
	how we feel that legacy resources should be assessed in case a resource
	accounting assessment model is to be used in the new charging scheme.
	We propose that legacy address blocks are assessed with a score of
	one eighth of the score assessed for a PA block of equal size.

	We also suggest a modification to the "Karrenberg document" so that
	a sponsoring LIR will not be inhibited from accommodating legacy
	resource holders by concern over a possible change of charging band.

	Attached are modified versions of Appendix 1 of RIPE-499 and of
	Appendix F of the "Karrenberg document" which make these suggestions
	explicit.


	Best regards,
	Niall O'Reilly



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20120531/f280f362/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: legacy-holders-charging-proposal.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 97950 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20120531/f280f362/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20120531/f280f362/attachment-0001.html>