Hi Tore,

...

If scrapping that option is the considered the right thing to do then it should go through the policy development process and be removed from the policies.

For what it's worth, I brought up this exact issue during the PDP last year, but got no response.

As long as the argument is 'can we get rid of this because nobody needs it', and not 'can we get rid of this because the NCC doesn't/won't implement it (in a usable form) anyway' then I don't mind :) Cheers, Sander

Hi Tore,

...

and not 'can we get rid of this because the NCC doesn't/won't implement it (in a usable form) anyway' then I don't mind :)

As far as I can tell, the NCC's proposal will, if approved, faithfully implement 2012-07's "DAU" option.

Not really. 2012-07 says 'the RIPE NCC may require the payment of reasonable charges according to the terms of the non-member service contract'. Making the DAU contract *more* expensive than becoming a full member does not even come close to 'reasonable' in my opinion. But this is something that the board and the AGM will have to decide on. And because potential DAU users are not members, that is really looking like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, without the sheep having a vote... Sander

* Tore Anderson

Put it another way, I would assume that the total operational cost of the NCC adding 100 new LIRs is much higher than the cost of adding a single new DAU member.

Thinko... s/higher/lower/ Tore

* Randy Bush

i am a legacy holder. i get dns, whois, ... now, for free. i do not wish to be beholden to an LIR. i am quite willing to pay a couple hundred euros/year for a cert. i am not willing to pay 1,800, it's outrageous.

Well, the proposed charging scheme for 2015 is €1600 per year both for a full LIR membership, and a "legacy-only/DAU" membership. If you're a legacy holder there's a €2000 sign-up fee for "DAU", €0 for LIR. https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/may-2014/supporting-documents/Charg... The way I'm thinking, is that either: 1) if «money's no object», one would go for the LIR option, as that gives the most services and the possibility to get IPv6 and a last-/8 /22 (which you then could probably sell to cover the fee... :-P), or: 2) if you don't have €1600 to spend, you'll either bite the bullet and get sponsored by another LIR for €50, or stay with the free "status quo" option. Either way, the DAU option doesn't seem very useful. Right? Tore

Hi, On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 06:44:41AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:

...

2) if you don't have ???1600 to spend, you'll either bite the bullet and get sponsored by another LIR for ???50, or stay with the free "status quo" option.

Either way, the DAU option doesn't seem very useful. Right?

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

But if I understand Tore right, you should be able to get that by having a "sponsoring LIR" (just as a non-legacy PI holder). So the benefit DAU gives you is "directly deal with the NCC". Gert -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Hi, On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 07:03:43AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:

...

...

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

But if I understand Tore right, you should be able to get that by having a "sponsoring LIR" (just as a non-legacy PI holder). So the benefit DAU gives you is "directly deal with the NCC".

i do not wish to be exposed to arbitrary actions of an LIR. it makes no business sense. it is essentially a three way contract, and those are historically fraught with complexity and eventual unhappiness.

Sorry - you said that earlier upthread, I was only focusing on the certification bit here. Sponsoring LIR seems to work out well if there is "friendly and trustworthy LIRs" around, and at least for our "sponsorees", the ability to deal with someone local in our native language trumps the "direct contract, no intermediate parties" alternative. But I can see that others might want the latter, and the policy explicitely requests the NCC to install that - so indeed, it should be done in a reasonable way. (*sigh* there go my evening plans for Wednesday... this will be a long and just so slightly heated discussion in the ncc-services WG, I'm afraid) Gert -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Hi,

Both the LIR option and the DAU option gives you certification for your legacy resources.

In addition, the LIR option gives you the possibility to request IPv4, IPv6, and some other stuff like extra Atlas features. Finally, the LIR option is also €2000 cheaper than the DAU one, due to the waived sign-up fee.

Why would you or anyone else then choose the DAU option over the LIR option?

That is exactly the point. The policy specifies that there should be an option for 'deal with the NCC directly without becoming a full member'. Then the NCC creates an option that is *more* expensive than becoming a full member, and then kills it because nobody wants is. If you *make* people not want it by attaching ridiculous prices to it then that is the obvious outcome. But it goed 200% against the spirit of the policy, and I am VERY angry because of that. Sander

Both the LIR option and the DAU option gives you certification for your legacy resources.

do you not read my messages, or do you just pretend to ignore them?

Why would you or anyone else then choose the DAU option over the LIR option?

try reading this again. or not. randy --- From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option To: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> Cc: ncc-services-wg@ripe.net, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 06:14:32 -0700

Precisely. I don't currently understand who would possibly need or want this option, given that the other options available seems better in every possible way.

i am a legacy holder. i get dns, whois, ... now, for free. i do not wish to be beholden to an LIR. i am quite willing to pay a couple hundred euros/year for a cert. i am not willing to pay 1,800, it's outrageous. randy

Hi, On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 04:25:02PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:

Who would go for option #2.4 and why?

Quite likely "nobody on this list"...

And if the answer is "no one", why do we need option #2.4?

... because the policy says so, as in "the community decided that they want the NCC to offer this" (or at least "nobody during the PDP felt strong enough about it to remove it"). Gert -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

* Gert Doering

... because the policy says so, as in "the community decided that they want the NCC to offer this"

But from Randy and Sander's messages to this thread it seems fairly clear that the DAU option the membership is asked to approve at the GM is *NOT* what the community (or at least not the 2012-07 authors) wanted the NCC to offer. So, what do I do at the GM? - If I vote YES to both the proposed 2015 charging scheme AND the proposed 2012-07 implementation plan, I will have voted in favour of the NCC wasting time and effort implementing an apparently useless DAU option which in any case is not the one the community/proposal authors wanted in the first place. - If I vote NO to either the proposed 2015 charging scheme and/or the proposed 2012-07 implementation plan, I will have rejected the useless DAU option and its implementation, but that probably means there won't be *any* DAU option, useful or useless. There appears to be no way possible combination of votes that I can cast at GM that would establish a *useful* DAU option in line with how the community and 2012-07 authors wanted it (i.e., one where "reasonable charges" means "significantly cheaper than full LIR status"). I find that quite problematic! Tore

Hi, On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:13:32AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:

...

... because the policy says so, as in "the community decided that they want the NCC to offer this"

But from Randy and Sander's messages to this thread it seems fairly clear that the DAU option the membership is asked to approve at the GM is *NOT* what the community (or at least not the 2012-07 authors) wanted the NCC to offer.

So, what do I do at the GM? [..] There appears to be no way possible combination of votes that I can cast at GM that would establish a *useful* DAU option in line with how the community and 2012-07 authors wanted it (i.e., one where "reasonable charges" means "significantly cheaper than full LIR status"). I find that quite problematic!

Yeah. They are doing it again. I think we'll see quite a bit of heated discussion in ncc-services - but I have no idea what to vote for, except maybe for "do not discharge the board". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 06:44:41AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

When did RIRs become the only certificate authority? AIUI, a RIR is "trusted" qua managing the certified resources. If they don't manage the resources, why is having their cert better than printing one's own or indeed setting up an alternative (and cheaper) registry for these resources? rgds, Sascha Luck

Hi Hans Petter,

I have some sympathy for your point of view, but also see some consecuences of it:

On 21/04/2014 15:14, Randy Bush wrote:

...

i am a legacy holder. i get dns, whois, ... now, for free. i do not wish to be beholden to an LIR. i am quite willing to pay a couple hundred euros/year for a cert. i am not willing to pay 1,800, it's outrageous.

How is this different from a new LIR that only gets a /22? Some of them have even expressed that they think thoose who have large amounts of address space should pay much more.

I seem to rememeber from the budget discussion when the one-member-one fee structure was passed that the expenses were roughly in 3 parts - a) registration services - b) supporting open policy fora such as RIPE meetings - c) other services like Atlas, DNSmon...

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?

Euhm, I don't think the intention is to 'opt-out' of b and c at all. I think that all contributions to the NCC should be used to support all activities. The amount going to b and c should be a percentage of a (which is the core function of the NCC). The differences between LIRs and DAUs are in part (a). LIRs can get allocations form the NCC, make assignments to customers, get help from the NCC with the Assisted Registry Check, be a sponsoring LIR for others etc. 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. (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) And for such a 'own use only' relationship the cost for (a) should be adjusted accordingly, just like the contribution to (b) and (c). I definitely would be opposed to people being able to choose whether they want (a,b,c), just (a) or any other combination. (well, I wouldn't mind donors that only pay for (b,c), but ok) 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. Cheers, Sander

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

Sander Steffann wrote:

Hi Hans Petter, [...] The differences between LIRs and DAUs are in part (a). LIRs can get allocations from the NCC, make assignments to customers, get help from the NCC with the Assisted Registry Check, be a sponsoring LIR for others etc. 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.

While I don't think it is a common activity, iirc, there are some LRHs which are doing exactly that, since quite a while. And imho, we are going to see other proposals getting tracation, which would remove even more "special things/limitations". The next one I guess is address transfer, just like the stuff for for PI. And, from my point of view, LR just *is* PI, ok, old PI. So, the farther I try to look into the future, the more the currently different colours on the address blocks, which we do love so much, will become a uniform, well - gray? Wilfried. [...]

Cheers, Sander

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

Repeat: the AGM does *not* "set fee structure". It can accept the board's proposed charging scheme, or keep the old one.

I do not agree. When the fee structure was changed in september 2012 the board gave the AGM several options based on input from the AGM in the first half of 2012. Hans Petter

I think something is being lost in translation. The membership determine the fee structure. Albeit one that's been worked out by the people the membership has delegated the responsibility for working that out. This is not the same thing has the membership "setting the fee structure" by deciding what the absolute values of those fees should be. That would be unworkable. Of course if the proposed fees are too high or low, the membership can vote reject the charging scheme and indirectly cause new fees to be set.

Hi, On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 08:01:44AM +0300, Hank Nussbacher wrote:

In my opinion, the membership has very little influence on the membership fees or the overall budget. We might think we do, but in reality we don't. Since 2002 (when the financial reserves of RIPE NCC were 4.2MEuro on Dec 31, 2002), the budget surplus has been run up to around now 23MEuro. For the past 10 years, we have run a budget surplus and have amassed a huge stockpile of money. Why? I have no idea. Has the RIPE NCC board ever felt that membership fees could be cut by 20% across the board and to start eating away at its stockpile of cash?

Well, actually *this* is not actually fair. The membership fees have gone down quite a lot over the last 10 years, and there even has been a cash payback one year. Jochem is complaining every year that the influx of new members has been higher than expected, and thus, income is higher, while they have been good stewards and spending was lower than budgeted. It's the NCC board's duty to ensure financial stability, so "just reduce the fees to 50% and see what this will do to our reservers" is not so good. The actual proposed charging scheme is reducing the LIR fees by about that amount you've proposed (20%), btw :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

On 23 apr 2014, at 11:53, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:

On 23 Apr 2014, at 06:01, Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote:

...

Since 2002 (when the financial reserves of RIPE NCC were 4.2MEuro on Dec 31, 2002), the budget surplus has been run up to around now 23MEuro. For the past 10 years, we have run a budget surplus and have amassed a huge stockpile of money. Why?

The NCC holds reserves equivalent to a year's turnover (or theresabouts). Most prudently run non-profit organisations and mutuals operate on this fiscally conservative metric/policy. Examples include ccTLD registries, IXPs, trade associations and membership societies. They're usually unable to borrow money for one reason or another too, so they have to depend on their own cash resources.

The rationale for maintaining reserves of around a year's turnover is that in the doomsday scenario where nobody pays their membership fees, the organisation has enough money to pay the bills and keep the lights on for a while. The reserves provide a reasonable amount of time for an orderly shutdown or for the organisation to find some other way to fund itself. The reserves also allow for stability by smoothing out any peaks or troughs in surplus/loss arising from day to day business. For instance, when the NCC has a big capital spend it could use its reserves to (part) fund that instead of putting up the membership fees or whatever.

The NCC's reserves are particularly important given the current industry uncertainties. Perhaps membership will decline as a result of the v4 run-out. Maybe new LIRs will pay fees just once to get a /48 of v6 and are never heard from again. IANA's future is unclear at present and nobody knows how it will be funded or if current funding arrangements will continue. Perhaps the NCC will need to fund a bigger footprint in some parts of its service region, say Russia or the Middle East.

While I agree with the reasoning of keeping reserves equivalent of a years turn-over, there is a risk of a circular argument here. I.e, the real question is - why is the turn-over so high? One answer is "because the membership voted for the activity plan". Another answer could be "because the activity plan doesn't really provide a breakdown that would allow us to break out individual pieces". This means that today, one of the most effective ways for the membership to question the turn-over is to ask for a reduction in membership fees. There is no obvious way to fix this unfortunately. However, what I personally would like to see, is for the RIPE NCC board to draw up some scenarios on what would allow for a lowering of the turn-over, and which services would be affected and how. We are currently in the odd situation that as we are seeing resources depleted, we are seeing the RIPE NCC growing larger than ever. Best regards, Lindqvist Kurt Erik kurtis@kurtis.pp.se

Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] NCC's reserves Date: Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 03:07:34PM +0100 Quoting Jim Reid (jim@rfc1035.com):

On 25 Apr 2014, at 10:23, Lindqvist Kurt Erik <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se> wrote:

...

We are currently in the odd situation that as we are seeing resources depleted, we are seeing the RIPE NCC growing larger than ever.

Indeed. It's decidedly odd. There must be some sort of alternate Parkinson's law which explains why the NCC's head count and budget increases as the number resources it manages get depleted.

However the NCC is not just what Daniel calls "a number factory". There are all these other services as well -- too many IMO -- and I think this WG might have some responsibility in that area. :-)

The need of managing the decreasing pool might involve an increased work effort per address block transferred between entities. Whenever I find that I'm up against organisational challenges from the NCC I go and read the first meeting minutes from something that could seem to be a completely different organisation: As a working title for the activities the meeting adopted the name RIPE (Reseaux IP Europeen). ... 7 Network Registration All participants agree that there should be some sort of registration of the networks taking part in the European IP net. This way any problems that may occur can be signaled to the responsible person. It was stressed that this registration activity is just a matter of keeping the registry up to date: in no way it should constitute some sort of authority. A 'whois' style of information service was suggested as a useful tool to access registry information. (Action: Anders Hillbo) Also a list of gateways should be created, describing which networks are authorised to use particular gateways. No formal policy statements were made and there should be no thresholds for organisations who wish to connect to the net, except for a description of the network and information about contact addresses to be entered into the registry. The need was recognised to write a document describing the ethics and acceptable use of the European IP network. (Action: all) What happened? -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 I am a traffic light, and Alan Ginzberg kidnapped my laundry in 1927!

Indeed. It's decidedly odd. There must be some sort of alternate Parkinson's law which explains why the NCC's head count and budget increases as the number resources it manages get depleted.

the resources they manage are not shrinking. they are charging rent for the same integers. funny business that. randy

On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Hans Petter Holen wrote:

On 25/04/2014 11:23, Lindqvist Kurt Erik wrote:

...

"because the activity plan doesn't really provide a breakdown that would allow us to break out individual pieces".

Have you had a look at the activity plan http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-598/at_download/pdf page 4?

Page 4 is a big improvement eventually. But still, if we consider "1" to be the core business, it is not easy to question the other almost 100 FTE's. As in most membership societies, a vast majority do not vote at all. And as long as the membership fees seem to go down, most of the members who do will be happy enough. I like the idea of a "what if" scenario. What if we had to cut costs say 10% or 20%? Regards, Daniel Stolpe _________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm

Hi Hans Petter,

...

Repeat: the AGM does *not* "set fee structure". It can accept the board's proposed charging scheme, or keep the old one.

I do not agree. When the fee structure was changed in september 2012 the board gave the AGM several options based on input from the AGM in the first half of 2012.

Which is exactly what I would like to see again. The problem is that there currently is no choice. I would be happy if the board would give the AGM the choice between the current proposed charging scheme and an option where - the legacy resource holders get the same as with 2012-07 option 2.3 - but without a Sponsoring LIR in between - nothing more, nothing less - for a reasonable price (is €500 reasonable? compared to the €50 of option 2.3) - also contributing to all the other good work the NCC does - where the NCC as a whole bears the implementation cost, just like with any other policy implementation The membership fee per year for LIRs *might* be a little bit higher, but because membership fees have been going down steadily over the last couple of years and the number of members is currently around 10k I would be really surprised if this will be very noticeable for any LIR's fee. I feel that none of the current options are a good implementation of what the RIPE community got consensus on, and that scares me. As a member of the NCC I would just like to have the option to vote on what I believe is the right thing to do. I don't have any legacy resources and am currently not paid by anyone who does (I did some small projects for SURFnet in the past) so if my membership fee goes up a few euros to implement this policy then I will be paying that out of my own personal pocket and I feel it will be money well spent. I feel that Hans Petter's suggestion of giving the AGM a choice is very good. I really hope that that will be the outcome of all this. Cheers! Sander

Hi,

...

- for a reasonable price (is €500 reasonable? compared to the €50 of option 2.3) Could be from a "strategic pricing point of view) - but the cost may be higher.

Well, the €50 is a strategic pricing point as well I guess, so I don't see that as a problem.

...

The membership fee per year for LIRs *might* be a little bit higher, but because membership fees have been going down steadily over the last couple of years and the number of members is currently around 10k I would be really surprised if this will be very noticeable for any LIR's fee. If we currently have 10 000 members at 1600 EUR (proposed 2015) that gives a revenue of¨16M 1000 legacy holders at 500E would give anoither 0,5M totaling 16,5M

That assumes that lots of legacy holders take the DAU option. I think in reality most will take the €50 option.

If the fees were distributed evenly it would be 1500 pr member

I do not have a particulary strong feeling about the fees. My company can easily afford the 1600 over the 1500.

But several new LIR who only get the /22 have expressed that they think this fee is unfairly high so they would also like to pay only 500.

They get a /22 and can get IPv6 addresses etc. The legacy holders bring their own resources. Weird. Everybody seems to assume option 2.4 is a cheap version of becoming a member, while it is the opposite: it is an expensive version of the €50 package...

Personally I can live with both - but I would like to see the fee strucure easily beeing explainable.

Definitely! :) Sander

On 21/04/2014 10:50, Tore Anderson wrote:

I believe the easiest way to prevent that from happening would be to explain why the reason why the option exists in the first place. I would have no problem voting in favour of the changing the membership structure if I understood why the option exists, who would use it, how come they wouldn't prefer any of the other options offered by the policy, and so on.

the initial intention in 2007-01 was that PI holders would be able to engage directly with the NCC without going through an intermediate. It immediately became clear that the NCC really oughtn't compete with its members, so they were put in a position that they needed to charge enough to make it clear that this was not happening. To this end, the board proposed that the direct option would be priced at the same level as the LIR membership fee. I wasn't very happy about this decision at the time, but changed my mind afterwards. There are enough LIRs out there that getting a friendly one to act as sponsor shouldn't be difficult. If it turns out that you don't like one, you can quickly and easily shift the resources to another. The same arguments apply to 2012-07. I'm not surprised that they've priced the direct option the same as LIR membership, because that's the point at which they absolutely cannot be accused of competing with their members. No doubt in a couple of years, this option will disappear from the RIPE NCC service list because few people if any are going to avail of it. The sky will not fall. Nick

On 22/04/2014 12:04, Dave Wilson wrote:

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but: it's not priced the same (as far as non-member legacy holders are concerned.) It's priced a one-off fee of €2000 higher than becoming a LIR, and €2000+€1550 per year higher than using the services of an existing member.

It's the same cost as setting up a new lir from scratch using proposed 2015 pricing. I.e. it will be marginally cheaper than in 2014, but the pricing will be equalised next year. Nick

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... rgds, Sascha Luck