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

Hi Hans Petter,

> I have some sympathy for your point of view, but also see some consecuences of it:
> 
> On 21/04/2014 15:14, Randy Bush wrote:
>> i am a legacy holder.  i get dns, whois, ... now, for free.  i do not
>> wish to be beholden to an LIR.  i am quite willing to pay a couple
>> hundred euros/year for a cert.  i am not willing to pay 1,800, it's
>> outrageous.
> 
> How is this different from a new LIR that only gets a /22?
> Some of them have even expressed that they think thoose who have large amounts of address space should pay much more.
> 
> I seem to rememeber from the budget discussion when the one-member-one fee structure was passed that the expenses were roughly in 3 parts
> - a) registration services
> - b) supporting open policy fora such as RIPE meetings
> - c) other services like Atlas, DNSmon...
> 
> If you - as a legacy holder - should be able to "opt-out" of b and c,
> why should I (read a new LIR with only a /22 or any other LIR) not be allowed to do the same?

Euhm, I don't think the intention is to 'opt-out' of b and c at all. I think that all contributions to the NCC should be used to support all activities. The amount going to b and c should be a percentage of a (which is the core function of the NCC).

The differences between LIRs and DAUs are in part (a). LIRs can get allocations form the NCC, make assignments to customers, get help from the NCC with the Assisted Registry Check, be a sponsoring LIR for others etc. DAUs only get something for themselves. They aren't allowed to assign any rights to third parties, so their registry services are much more limited. (I am also thinking about 2007-01 here. For 2012-07 the DAUs bring their own address space, so there the registry functions are much less anyway, they just get the right to document stuff in the RIPE DB)

And for such a 'own use only' relationship the cost for (a) should be adjusted accordingly, just like the contribution to (b) and (c). I definitely would be opposed to people being able to choose whether they want (a,b,c), just (a) or any other combination. (well, I wouldn't mind donors that only pay for (b,c), but ok)  We are a community, we're trying to get the legacy resource holders back in and that includes participating in the funding of the other functions of the RIPE NCC.

Cheers,
Sander