[ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Policy Proposal (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:17:03PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
>I agree. I think we have to focus on "So what we have to decide as a
>community is: under which policies does the RIPE community allow legacy
>space holders to register their address space in the RIPE Internet
>Number registry. Nothing more, nothing less.". The recent actions by
>the RIPE NCC have caused some fear and frustration amongst the legacy
>resource holders, and the current policy proposal reflects that. The
>next version of this policy proposal should remove that and focus on
>what Daniel said (+ reverse DNS services I think).

I think it's simple: 
Which is the higher good, a high-quality ripedb or control of the ERX
space? IMO, that is for the *community* to decide, and therefore gives
the *community* standing to make such policy.
If the ripedb quality is the goal, I have no problems with a policy 
framework that imposes no obligations on the ERX holders vis-a-vis the
NCC. 
Even requiring payment might be detrimental to this goal as some ERX
holders might not want to pay and don't care about db entries...

I'd support the proposal but for a disagreement with the wording in 
(ia) s5.5:

"In the case that the holder of a legacy Internet resource opts to 
engage via a sponsoring LIR and wishes to avail only of basic services
as defined above, assessment of the billing category of the sponsoring
LIR should take account of the legacy resource using a score or rate
less than that applicable for a corresponding PI resource"

I've always taken the position that resources that are not controlled,
merely sponsored, by a LIR should not count into the billing category
calculations for that LIR, and  thus cannot agree with any proposal that
can be construed to cement this practice for the forseeable future.

rgds,
Sascha Luck