[ncc-services-wg] legacy holders paying for registration services and 2012-07v2

On 4 Feb 2013, at 12:21, Nick Hilliard <nick at netability.ie> wrote:

> but payment for services received is fundamental.

Nick, I agree with the general principle that everybody using NCC services should pay their fair share. However IMO it would be best to apply a bit of compromise and pragmatism in this case.

The "core" service for legacy holders is maintaining the database objects for those resources. The supporting infrastructure for that -- database systems, DNS/whois servers, LIR portal, etc -- already exist. So the incremental cost to the NCC of making that platform available to legacy holders should be very low. It may well cost the NCC more to bill legacy holders for a few Euro each time they change a reverse DNS delegation or update a contact object. I'd be very uneasy about introducing measures (ie fees) which discourage legacy holders to keep their registration data up to date. After all what's *really* more important here, a complete (ish) registration database that can be relied upon or some accountancy paperwork?

On-going care and maintenance of the registration database is the NCC's prime reason to exist. IMO, that means the NCC has inherited the overheads of proving that for the legacy holders in its service region and is stuck with that. It's simply the cost of doing business and the NCC just has to suck it up. Sorry.

I'm sure the NCC staff and board will keep an eye on the actual costs of providing registration services "for free" to legacy holders if 2012-07 is passed. If those costs turn out to be a burden, we should trust The Management to bring this to the attention of the WGs and the NCC membership. So let's get on with adopting 2012-07. The policy can always be reviewed in light of actual experience.

Personally, I disagree with the definition of Registry Services in 2012-07. IMO it should not include certification of registration data. [If legacy holders want that, they should become NCC members as far as I'm concerned.] After all, resource certification was not a service which existed when the legacy holders originally got their resources. So the services they get "for free" now should be the same as the services they got for free from the InterNIC. However I go along with the definition in 2012-07 as a compromise in order to help arrive at a consensus policy. I hope you can compromise too.

BTW, there's a lot of irony on my part here. I don't represent an LIR or legacy holder. There's a fair bit hypocrisy too because I'm a strong advocate of the NCC not doing stuff "for free". And now I'm another non-member suggesting how NCC members' money gets spent. So shoot me...

PS: apologies for using a meaningful Subject: header. :-)