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

> Hi Hans Petter,
>
> Steffan's already posted about the detail, but I have a more abstract
> answer.

I guess this was to abstract for me.


> For the same reason we needed a policy in the first place. The policy
> arose specifically so that legacy resource holders wouldn't be required
> to become members.

The RIPE NCC is a membership organisation with the purpose of providing
services to its members.

IMHO becoming a member gives you rights (like electing the board, thus
influencing the activity plan and the fee structure), taking services
gives you obligations like paying.

Why would you want only the obligations and not the rights?

> We (the RIPE community) are the ones asking legacy resource holders for
> something new here, not the other way around. RIPE NCC first started
> asking LRHs to become members, without a policy, at the time of RIPE 63
> in Vienna. The objective of RIPE-605 is to give a basis in policy for
> LRHs to become members if they wish; to contribute reasonably if not;
> and get certain services (and not others) based on their choice.
>
>> 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?
>
> Not trying to be glib here but I see it as this simple: because there is
> no basis in policy for that.

I do not understand why this should be different for legacy holders and
others.

I do have sympathy for Randy´s point of view: it is to expensive.
But that may as well apply to new addresses just as for old addresses.

We used to have a fee structure where amount of addresses and age of
addresses affected the fee.

This was changed by the AGM not the policy process.

Thus - the fee structure is not set by the policy process, but by the AGM.


-hph