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

Hi Nick,

Op 1 nov. 2013, om 22:15 heeft Nick Hilliard <nick at netability.ie> het volgende geschreven:
> 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.

Please don't confuse things like this. Option 2.6 is only there so that we don't cripple the database by taking away things that are already there... 

This policy proposal builds the foundations for legacy resource holders to work together with the RIPE NCC, although legacy resource holders cannot be forced into an agreement: The legacy resource holders had their resources before the NCC started, and the NCC assumed responsibility for maintaining the database for legacy address space. The NCC has an obligation to the community (not only to its members) of running a correct registry. Option 2.6 recognises that: legacy resource holders that don't want to participate don't get any rights to new services, but the registry will be maintained.

> 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.

Yes, if we want to contact the legacy holders then the NCC will have to spend time on it. part of our (I am an LIR too, as a single-person company, so it is not a trivial amount of money for me) contribution to the NCC will be used for this, yes. But the only way to not have these costs is to not contact legacy resource holders at all and keep the status-quo. A lot of legacy resource holders are *participating* and propose 2012-07 because they *want* to work with the NCC.

I really don't see your point. What do you want?
- Force legacy resource holders to enter into an agreement? That is legally not possible because the RIPE NCC never provided the resources to them and cannot now claim to have authority over them.
- Refuse to cooperate with legacy resource holders? Don't provide any services to them? That would mess up the registry that the NCC is supposed to maintain for the community (not just its members)
- Work with legacy resource holders that want to participate, and do the minimum (keep the registry up to date but nothing else) for those that don't? That is exactly what 2012-07 is doing...

> 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.

Where did you get that idea? I keep telling you: they don't get anything new under option 2.6, certainly not certification. Just maintaining the registry and possible reverse DNS if they already have it. No resource certification, not anything else. Because they don't have those services now, and they won't get them in the future if they choose option 2.6.

> 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.

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong here. But I think I explained that above already...
Sander