Re: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option
Dear Sascha, [I am still investigating why my mailer sent two empty mails to the list. I suspect this is due to some special character in the message I was replying to. I am sorry for the inconvenience.]
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 EUR 2000 cheaper than a separate direct agreement.
At least it makes the intention clear - the NCC wants to gain control of these legacy resources
I am afraid I do not understand why you think the charging scheme could help the RIPE NCC gain control over legacy resources. To my understanding, all legacy resources would be marked as "legacy" irrespective of the fact that the holder (1) becomes a member, (2) is already a member an extends the contract to cover the legacy resources as well, (3) uses a sponsoring LIR, (4) enters in direct contractual relationship wit the NCC or (5) does not sign any contract at all. The RIPE NCC may not de-register the legacy resources unless asked to do so by the resource holder. Moreover, if the contract (with the member, the sponsoring LIR or DAU) is terminated, the resource is simply flagged "No contract". Best regards, Janos
(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...
rgds, Sascha Luck
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 04:09:45PM +0200, Janos Zsako wrote:
The RIPE NCC may not de-register the legacy resources unless asked to do so by the resource holder. Moreover, if the contract (with the member, the sponsoring LIR or DAU) is terminated, the resource is simply flagged "No contract".
AIUI, if a resource holder extends the SSA to cover legacy resources, there is a risk that if the NCC is unhappy with the LIR wrt *these* resources, the LIR could be sanctioned and lose their *other* resources. That is pretty effective control in my understanding. This logic also now makes it clear why Option 2.4 is needed, an existing LIR may mitigate this risk by having their legacy resources covered by a separate, more individual, contract. Interesting in this context is also the statement that under option 2.3, "the RIPE NCC will not allow the Legacy Resource Holder to become the sponsoring LIR for its own Legacy Internet Resources." rgds, Sascha Luck PS: I hold no legacy resources so I don't really have a pig in this race.
Dear Sascha,
The RIPE NCC may not de-register the legacy resources unless asked to do so by the resource holder. Moreover, if the contract (with the member, the sponsoring LIR or DAU) is terminated, the resource is simply flagged "No contract".
AIUI, if a resource holder extends the SSA to cover legacy resources, there is a risk that if the NCC is unhappy with the LIR wrt *these* resources, the LIR could be sanctioned and lose their *other* resources.
To my understanding, if the NCC has any problems with any _legacy_ resources, they may terminate only the _legacy_services_ (see: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/may-2014/supporting-documents/Update... part "C. Legacy Internet Resources", paragraph 1.1.
That is pretty effective control in my understanding.
I am afraid this is a misunderstanding.
This logic also now makes it clear why Option 2.4 is needed, an existing LIR may mitigate this risk by having their legacy resources covered by a separate, more individual, contract.
I do not think this was the reason for making option 2.4 available. The authors could either confirm or deny this.
Interesting in this context is also the statement that under option 2.3,
"the RIPE NCC will not allow the Legacy Resource Holder to become the sponsoring LIR for its own Legacy Internet Resources."
I think the reason for this is that the resource holder and the sponsoring LIR have to sign a contract. How could the two parties of a contract be the same entity? Nevertheless, extending the contract to cover the legacy space too is cheaper for the member (they do not have to pay the 50 EUR per legacy assignment). Best regards, Janos
rgds, Sascha Luck
PS: I hold no legacy resources so I don't really have a pig in this race.
participants (2)
-
Janos Zsako -
Sascha Luck