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

Subject: [ncc-services-wg] legacy holders paying for registration services and 2012-07v2 Date: Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 01:47:07PM +0000 Quoting Jim Reid (jim at rfc1035.com):
> 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?

I represent a LRH in this context. We do have a LIR relation, are being
good netizens, and do pay for services related to some services and
resources. (ASN, v6 /48, a couple swampspace PI C-nets). But, our LIR has
no hand in us having a B net. We simply have it, and we treat it like any
other resource, except that the loan is a little more permanent. The point
is, I do not think we're that unique. A lot of the legacy holders have
some LIR relationship as it is. Or are LIRen. The "completely estranged
LRH holder organisation" is not that common, I believe. Wasting electrons 
on this corner case is not fruitful. Nor is it going to be the cornucopia
feeding hostmasters great paychecks and getting fees on RIPE services 
slashed.  
 
> 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'd go even further than that and say that the value of the NCC database
as a routing registry or "abuse tool" or whatever it is used for is
_directly_related_ to it being as complete as possible. It ought to be a
major goal of any RIR to achieve total coverage of used resources. It is 
IMNSHO so important for the perception of the registry that it is complete
that forcing resources out because the holder won't pay probably has severe
career- limiting consequences. And I believe that the NCC basically
has understood this, even if the accounting department is annoyed and
wants Ordnung.
 
> 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.

Indeed. 
 
As probably can be derived from above, I support the policy proposal as
it stands.

-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
Oh, I get it!!  "The BEACH goes on", huh, SONNY??
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20130204/db0bb1bd/attachment.sig>