This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Implementation plan for 2012-07, "RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders"
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Sat Apr 19 12:33:00 CEST 2014
First of all I'd like to congratulate the proposal authors and the WG for having finally brought the legacy space out of the "legal vacuum" it was residing in. Well done! The agenda for May's General Meeting was recently published[1] and as expected one of the points is about 2012-07's implementation plan[2]. Keeping in line with section 2.4 of the proposal[3], the plan proposes to implement a new [non-]membership class where I assume the [non-]member in question will only receive services relating to their legacy resources, but not the rest of the services normally offered to RIPE NCC members / LIRs. I do get a strong sense of déjà vu here - isn't this pretty much exactly the same membership class as the Direct Assignment User ("DAU") that was first introduced by proposal 2007-01 and subsequently scrapped by the General Meeting in September 2012[4]? Is there any conceivable scenario were a legacy holder would prefer to become a DAU over becoming a full member? I cannot think of one - as I understand it, a full member would be provided with all the services a DAU would (and more), at a lower cost[5]. Why would anyone want to pay more for less? I believe we made the right choice in scrapping the original DAU membership class. We now have a extremely simple and easy to understand membership structure, and a predictable charging scheme. Therefore I currently have a problem with voting for the Board's proposed implementation plan as I see it as a regression. That said, I am open to be persuaded why we do need another "DAU" membership class for legacy holders. So if anyone know of a compelling rationale for section 2.4, please help me out here... Tore [1] https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/may-2014/agenda [2] https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/may-2014/supporting-documents/ProposedImplementationPlanforLegacyServices.pdf [3] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-605#2-4-option-to-engage-directly-with-the-ripe-ncc [4] http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/announcements/ripe-ncc-charging-scheme-2013 [5] https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/may-2014/supporting-documents/ChargingScheme2015.pdf
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Implementation plan for 2012-07, "RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders"
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]