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

Hi Sander,

> Euhm, I don't think the intention is to 'opt-out' of b and c at all.

Why should you then pay less as a legacy holder?

> I  think that all contributions to the NCC should be used to support all
> activities.

Good - then we agree on that part.

>The amount going to b and c should be a percentage of a (which
> is the core function of the NCC).

I do not understand

> The differences between LIRs and DAUs are in part (a). LIRs can get
> allocations form the NCC,

Not really - there is no more v4 space, remember.
Legacy holders can also get v6 space - which I would encourage.
if they already have v6 space trough an existing LIR - thats their perfect
match for a "sponsoring LIR"

>make assignments to customers,

Why not? I Think several of the legacy holders are doing exactly that.

> get help from the
> NCC with the Assisted Registry Check, be a sponsoring LIR for others etc.

As a legacy holder signed up as an LIR you can get all these services from
the RIPE NCC.
Unless you want to "opt-out" from these services.

> 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.

Why? IMHO Address space is address space.

> (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)

If you look at the 2014 activity plan
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-598
page 4.

Which of the lines would you take out?

> 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.

Agreed, but I am not sure on how we can do that only for legacy holders
without causing trouble with existing membership.

And remember creating a new membership class has an implementation cost -
which then must be added after