[ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option

Hi,

>> Who would go for option #2.4 and why?
> 
> Quite likely "nobody on this list"...
> 
>> And if the answer is "no one", why do we need option #2.4?
> 
> ... because the policy says so, as in "the community decided that they
> want the NCC to offer this" (or at least "nobody during the PDP felt
> strong enough about it to remove it").

I remember that for 2007-01 there were a few organisations that wanted/needed that option. But because the NCC charged as much for DAU as for full LIR they obviously choose the latter. That doesn't show that the DAU option is not what people want though, only that the NCC made it very unattractive.

I know that the authors of 2012-07 recognised this, which is why the policy explicitly says that option 2.4 must be offered for 'reasonable charges'. There are legacy resource holders who want that option (and they are indeed probably not on this list). All the options were thoroughly discussed with several legacy resource holders and NCC staff before publishing each version of 2012-07 to make sure that everything was done right. It really felt like a good cooperation where the NCC was actually listening to the whole community, not just the part of it that are its members. The current charging fee proposal has broken (part of) that trust again, at least for me :(

Sander