Dear Peter, To answer your first question, option 3 would require more resources than option 1 because it would require the RIPE NCC to create new processes for handling non-members. In addition to setting up these new processes, the RPKI system and its surrounding applications will need to be extended and maintained to facilitate this new process and allow non-members access. In response to your second question, I’d like to thank you for raising this issue. We cannot say at this moment what cost model option 3 would be subject to because it will be up to the membership to decide this. If option 3 is selected, we will ask for feedback on whether or not the membership expects some sort of cost recovery model, and this issue will need to be reviewed in the next round of charging scheme discussions. Based on that feedback, the Executive Board will provide several different cost models, and the membership will have the opportunity to decide what they feel is best for them. Kind regards, Andrew de la Haye Chief Operations Officer On Mar 16, 2013, at 5:03 PM, Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> wrote:
Andrew,
impact, as they align with our current business practices. Option 3 would require PI End Users to have a direct contact with the RIPE NCC. As this would be a new venture for the RIPE NCC, we expect it would be the most labour intensive of the three options and would have the greatest impact in terms of resources.
could you please clarify whether options (1) and (3) would differ in resource consumption and why? Option (3) makes no indication regarding cost recovery. Setting the legacy resource holder debate aside, is the expectation that option (3) would provide the service free of charge, billed on hours incurred or by a fixed fee? Given that the current charging model is flat, but does not have to remain flat in the future, is a subscription model feasible? (a subscriber is basically a paying customer receiving the same services as a member, whithout having the rights and duties of a member)).
-Peter, as an individual