[ncc-services-wg] comments on proposal 2012-07

On 01/11/2013 18:50, Sander Steffann wrote:
> Just to make sure: are you suggesting that the RIPE NCC should *not*
> contact all legacy resource holders? That would imply that option 2.6 is
> in effect for every legacy resource holders until they contact the NCC
> by themselves, which doesn't sound like a sensible option to me...

Not at all.  I'm just saying that this proposal comes with a price tag.  As
a paying RIPE NCC member, I'd like to know how many zeros we're going to
see on that tag, because that will influence how strongly I feel about
giving every legacy holder a free-services-forever option under section 2.6.

Outside the ongoing costs of running the registry, the impact analysis
indicates 700-900 FTE working days for the registry services department
(i.e. ~3-4 FTE years) for handling the contact phase and an unspecified but
nontrivial amount of work in business applications which relates to
providing services for the direct contractual relationship option in
section 2.4.  Already this is not a small amount of time, money and resources.

The 2500 organisations noted in the impact analysis represents about 10% of
the total number of organisations that the RIPE NCC deals with (I'm sure
there is plenty of overlap).  I find it difficult to understand why this
10% have the option of receiving almost the same level of service from the
RIPE NCC as the 90% of organisations who pay.  Registration services cost
money to provide and it is not unreasonable for users of those registration
services to contribute to these running costs.

Also, despite what has been said by several people about this proposal,
there is no real conflict between accurate resource registration and
requiring payment for services.  I have no issue with anyone being able to
update admin / tech contacts or org: entries on a permanent free basis, but
this can easily be provided without necessarily creating a permanent
commitment to e.g. free reverse DNS or providing authorization for creating
route: objects or resource certification or anything else.

Legacy resource holders have had twenty something years of free service
supported by the rest of the community.  It it not unreasonable to require
them - all of them, not just the responsible ones that will avail of
sections 2.1-2.5 - to contribute a small amount to the cost of running the
registry services that they have used and will continue to use in
perpetuity.  And I believe that this can be done without compromising the
aims of registry accuracy.

Nick