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

At 12:10 22/04/2014 +0100, Sascha Luck wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:40:39AM +0100, Dave Wilson wrote:
>>The annual fee is the same, yes, but also in the 2015 charging scheme: 
>>"Legacy Internet resource holders that become a member do not have to pay 
>>a sign-up fee." So for the audience of 2012-07, becoming a LIR is a flat 
>>one-off €2000 cheaper than a separate direct agreement.
>
>At least it makes the intention clear - the NCC wants to gain control of
>these legacy resources (whereas the goal of 2012-07, AIUI, is to ensure
>a way to keep resources registered, without the holders giving up
>control). IMO this implementation negates many of the changes that came
>out of the long debate on this proposal...

Perhaps someone with a better understanding of the politics in the RIPE NCC 
can explain to me why consistently they have taken an anti-LRH (Legacy 
Resource Holder) stance?  This thread is not the first time around.

LRHs have volunteered their time over decades to make the Internet what it 
is today.  If we were a bunch of LIR spam-kings, flush with Euros, I could 
understand the negavity but in general LRHs are academic institutes or 
non-profit organizations (in general).  So I just don't understand (perhaps 
my wrong perception) why at every juncture the LRHs have to fight and argue.

-Hank


>rgds,
>Sascha Luck