Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Dear address-policy-wg, One concern I have about the current 2007-01 draft is the lack of arguments opposing the proposal mentioned under the 'Rationale' section of the document. While many such arguments were raised and discussed extensively on this mailing list, the draft itself raises only one such argument and proceeds to immediately dismiss it. In the current draft, some of the following objections may still be relevant to varying extent: - Given the diversity of legal systems the RIPE NCC service region, the success of contractually binding existing resource holders to a new contract and fee is uncertain, and might be the beginning of a long and expensive exercise in futility. - By attempting to levy a new fee on existing end users of directly assigned resources, RIPE NCC risks creating widespread dissent from these very same end users which had no voting right on this matter and were likely unaware of the proceedings of this WG; in the worst case scenario, this might result in end users utilizing resources regardless of their status in the WHOIS database. - Previous experience (domain reg. world) suggests that by putting an explicit price tag on number resources, the "sponsoring LIR" approach in its currently presented form might result in the rise of "discount LIRs". These LIRs would process the bulk of the assignments with no accountability to keep costs low, turning direct assignments into a revenue source and laying waste to many potential benefits which could result from this proposal. - The issue of resource reclamation when resources fall into disuse can potentially be addressed at significantly lower cost and complexity through technological solutions similar to those employed by e-retail outfits for customer account management (automated verification of electronic and snail-mail contacts, IVR verification of phone contacts, regular re-verification). Given the importance of this proposal, and considering that unfortunately the members participating in this WG are a small subset of the affected community, we should ensure the draft provides a balanced overview which includes the opposing arguments that remain valid for this draft. Such an overview would aid those who will be voting on this proposal without the benefit of years of participation and discussion in this WG. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov
David, On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 13:38 +0200, David Monosov wrote:
- Given the diversity of legal systems the RIPE NCC service region, the success of contractually binding existing resource holders to a new contract and fee is uncertain, and might be the beginning of a long and expensive exercise in futility.
Hm... the only thing fee-related is: "Any specific details of possible fees for such End Users are also out the scope of this proposal. This needs to be developed by the RIPE NCC Board in the same manner that LIR fees are proposed and developed." My take on the fee issue is: * The intention of the proposal is to track resources, not to collect money. If PI-holders have a contract with an LIR (for instance, one of their peers), then there is no fee necessary. * PI-holders do place *some* burden on the management of the Internet number resources, and so asking them to pay is not bad. I think that in the ARIN region the fee is $100 a year (about €70) for allocations like this, which is a trivial amount of money, especially since (unlike in the ARIN region I think) there is a way to avoid this cost completely (by using an LIR). -- Shane
Dear Shane, Shane Kerr wrote:
David,
On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 13:38 +0200, David Monosov wrote:
- Given the diversity of legal systems the RIPE NCC service region, the success of contractually binding existing resource holders to a new contract and fee is uncertain, and might be the beginning of a long and expensive exercise in futility.
Hm... the only thing fee-related is:
"Any specific details of possible fees for such End Users are also out the scope of this proposal. This needs to be developed by the RIPE NCC Board in the same manner that LIR fees are proposed and developed."
The proposal also refers to a document titled “Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region”, which contains additional information on this subject.
My take on the fee issue is:
* The intention of the proposal is to track resources, not to collect money.
The intention is clear. It's the contractual and operational details which are in a bit of a flux, and could benefit from a more balanced overview within the draft to present some of the potential implementation pitfalls.
If PI-holders have a contract with an LIR (for instance, one of their peers), then there is no fee necessary.
For what it's worth, currently the aforementioned document appears to contradict your take on this particular issue. It makes a specific requirement for assigned resources to be returned in the event the annual fee to the LIR is not paid.
* PI-holders do place *some* burden on the management of the Internet number resources, and so asking them to pay is not bad.
I think that in the ARIN region the fee is $100 a year (about €70) for allocations like this, which is a trivial amount of money, especially since (unlike in the ARIN region I think) there is a way to avoid this cost completely (by using an LIR).
-- Shane
-- Respectfully yours, David Monosov
Hello,
One concern I have about the current 2007-01 draft is the lack of arguments opposing the proposal mentioned under the 'Rationale' section of the document. While many such arguments were raised and discussed extensively on this mailing list, the draft itself raises only one such argument and proceeds to immediately dismiss it.
In the current draft, some of the following objections may still be relevant to varying extent:
- Given the diversity of legal systems the RIPE NCC service region, the success of contractually binding existing resource holders to a new contract and fee is uncertain, and might be the beginning of a long and expensive exercise in futility.
- By attempting to levy a new fee on existing end users of directly assigned resources, RIPE NCC risks creating widespread dissent from these very same end users which had no voting right on this matter and were likely unaware of the proceedings of this WG; in the worst case scenario, this might result in end user utilizing resources regardless of their status in the WHOIS database.
To be honest, my intention to see 2007-01 put in action is to solve the imbalance imposed by the current billing scheme (PA has a recurring, for most networks not too small price tag attached, PI is basically free). Don't tell me PI is not PA because you cannot assign it to other endusers, there are dozens of ISPs that run entirely on PI. Another goal, I might be sticking something into a hornet's nest here, is to have a pricetag imposed on the only thing that costs money to all service-providers worldwide, and that is routingslots. I've heard from a lot of people who actually want this, but I don't see any technical sane way to achieve it. The closest thing are recurring fees for PI space. I know this doesn't handle deaggregation on it's own, but it's a start. Regarding the "new contract" thing. In my eyes, the cause with PIv4 is lost anyway. I want this for PIv6 from the start, and for new PIv4 assignments to be fair. If it is legally possible to push old resource holders into contracts with recurring fees, do it, if it isn't then don't. So basically what I would like to see is the following: - a recurring fee that is imposed to all PIv6 and new PIv4 assignments - the contract might be with a LIR or with RIPE, with substantial higher cost for dealing with RIPE directly - there will be _no_ scoring system (categories or whatever) that lowers the cost per assignment when a LIR/enduser is managing more of them. At Dec. 31st every PI assignment in contractual relation with RIPE NCC directly costs y EUR billed to the enduser, every PI assignment in contractual relation with a LIR costs x EUR (0 < x < y) billed to the LIR WITHOUT REBATE. The LIR can decide by itself how much it adds for handling the contract when billing it to the enduser. This should take care of the "Discount LIRs". - there should be some contract with existing PI holders. If there is consensus not to bill old assignments retroactively or if the legal advisors decide it's too risky, fine with me. Have a contract to track resources, but don't bill them. If however existing assignments are to be transferred the normal contract should be required. So basically, bill new resources, get a sensible approach with old resources and finally get PIv6 out of the door. I think 2007-01 v4.0 is the right tool to do this, and I want to see this soon. You may shoot now. Bernhard
* Bernhard Schmidt:
(PA has a recurring, for most networks not too small price tag attached, PI is basically free)
Is there a way around the scoring algorithm I don't know about? -- Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
Hi, On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 09:08:45AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Bernhard Schmidt:
(PA has a recurring, for most networks not too small price tag attached, PI is basically free)
Is there a way around the scoring algorithm I don't know about?
PI is currently scored in the year of assignment, and then never again, so it's not "fully free", but after the initial cost, it is - so the term "basically free" is appropriate. You can see this from the yearly "charging scheme" documents, e.g. the 2008 charging scheme document lists: ------------------- quote ---------------------- The scoring system takes into account all: * IPv4 allocations * IPv6 allocations The scoring system also takes into account any of the following assignments made at the request of the member between 1 October 2006 and 30 September 2007: * IPv4 Provider Independent (PI) assignments * IPv6 direct assignments * AS Number assignments ------------------- quote ---------------------- ("IPv6 direct assignments" are IXP and name server prefixes) As has been mentioned before: the address policy WG does not have the power to actually decide on the final charging scheme. We give input to the AGM (= annual general meeting of all NCC members), and the AGM decides on the final charging scheme to be implemented. So, regarding the *charging* component of 2007-01: the AGM can do this without 2007-01, or they can decide to not do anything about it, even with 2007-01 reaching consensus. The main point of 2007-01 is the *contract* component - and this is something the APWG needs to agree on. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi,
(PA has a recurring, for most networks not too small price tag attached, PI is basically free) Is there a way around the scoring algorithm I don't know about? PI is currently scored in the year of assignment, and then never again, so it's not "fully free", but after the initial cost, it is - so the term "basically free" is appropriate.
And even this initial cost are only scoring points. I work (among others) for a medium sized business ISP, with a /16, a /18 and a /32 IPv6 assigned a few years ago. This equals to around 500 scoring points which pushes us in the medium sized LIR category. http://www.ripe.net/membership/billing/procedure.html says I can use up to 864 scoring points before becoming a (more expensive) large LIR. This difference of 350 to be used scoring points allows me to request something around a /20 (16 * (2008-1992)) _per_ _year_ without paying a single cent more to RIPE. And hell, pay 1500 EUR more for one year (large category) and have ~5500 scoring points available. That's an insane amount of address space that will be totally free after one year. Bernhard
* Gert Doering:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 09:08:45AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Bernhard Schmidt:
(PA has a recurring, for most networks not too small price tag attached, PI is basically free)
Is there a way around the scoring algorithm I don't know about?
PI is currently scored in the year of assignment, and then never again, so it's not "fully free", but after the initial cost, it is - so the term "basically free" is appropriate.
Yuck. And our RIPE DB guy actually knew this; maybe I should have talked to him earlier. Anyway, this particular way of pricing resources (or adminstrative overhead) certainly had a rationale at one point. The question is whether it still applies. The situation may look pretty bad (as Shane wrote), but the alternative options may be even worse (in our experience, it's difficult to hand back PA resources---with PI, waste is at least visible). -- Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
Florian Weimer wrote:
... with PI, waste is at least visible).
Once again, and again, and maybe one more time: Just because a PI prefix does not appear in *your* global routeing table does not mean it is not in active and valid use. PI prefixes do not have to be publicly published and there are very good reasons why not. Please read up on terms like VPN and INTERnets (my dumb emphasis). Peter
* Peter Galbavy:
Florian Weimer wrote:
... with PI, waste is at least visible).
Once again, and again, and maybe one more time:
Just because a PI prefix does not appear in *your* global routeing table does not mean it is not in active and valid use.
Sure. But even if you don't route it publicly, you still should keep the information in the RIPE database up-to-date. If nobody announces the prefix, and the organization mentioned in the database does not exist anymore, it surely smells unused. -- Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
Hi Bernhard, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
To be honest, my intention to see 2007-01 put in action is to solve the imbalance imposed by the current billing scheme (PA has a recurring, for most networks not too small price tag attached, PI is basically free). Don't tell me PI is not PA because you cannot assign it to other endusers, there are dozens of ISPs that run entirely on PI.
The proposal itself states that end users will be subject to a fee. Based on your point above I take it that you favor interpreting this is "a non-trivial fee", and it seems to me that you implicitly suggest it should be higher than the costs the RIPE NCC will incur directly from processing such end user assignments.
Another goal, I might be sticking something into a hornet's nest here, is to have a pricetag imposed on the only thing that costs money to all service-providers worldwide, and that is routingslots. I've heard from a lot of people who actually want this, but I don't see any technical sane way to achieve it. The closest thing are recurring fees for PI space. I know this doesn't handle deaggregation on it's own, but it's a start.
A point you further reinforce above.
Regarding the "new contract" thing. In my eyes, the cause with PIv4 is lost anyway. I want this for PIv6 from the start, and for new PIv4 assignments to be fair. If it is legally possible to push old resource holders into contracts with recurring fees, do it, if it isn't then don't.
So basically what I would like to see is the following: - a recurring fee that is imposed to all PIv6 and new PIv4 assignments - the contract might be with a LIR or with RIPE, with substantial higher cost for dealing with RIPE directly - there will be _no_ scoring system (categories or whatever) that lowers the cost per assignment when a LIR/enduser is managing more of them. At Dec. 31st every PI assignment in contractual relation with RIPE NCC directly costs y EUR billed to the enduser, every PI assignment in contractual relation with a LIR costs x EUR (0 < x < y) billed to the LIR WITHOUT REBATE. The LIR can decide by itself how much it adds for handling the contract when billing it to the enduser. This should take care of the "Discount LIRs". - there should be some contract with existing PI holders. If there is consensus not to bill old assignments retroactively or if the legal advisors decide it's too risky, fine with me. Have a contract to track resources, but don't bill them. If however existing assignments are to be transferred the normal contract should be required.
While you indeed address some of the concerns contained in my initial post,
So basically, bill new resources, get a sensible approach with old resources and finally get PIv6 out of the door.
and while I don't see this draft as an explicit condition to getting IPv6 out the door (although I do see the benefits of doing so) and its intention is clear to me,
I think 2007-01 v4.0 is the right tool to do this, and I want to see this soon. You may shoot now.
you also raise another concern which I was somewhat reluctant to voice so far. The draft itself is reasonably concise and deals with little more than the need to set up a contractual relationship between either RIPE NCC or individual LIRs and end users. When looking at it in this limited scope, it indeed appears to have reached consensus and at the moment has few to no opposing arguments. The trouble, however, lies in the details. For example, while Shane's take on the implementation of this proposal is that it will result in no cost or minimal cost for end users - your interpretation seems to be one of an opportunity to enforce something akin to a routing slot tax which would be sufficiently high to discourage waste; two quite conflicting points of view stemming from the implementation of the the very same policy document! It's easy to dismiss these concerns as contractual, operational, and financial issues which are outside the policy scope of the proposal. However, the "carte blanche" nature of this policy draft differentiates it from most policy documents. Once this proposal is passed, the set of goals which will be achieved and the methods employed to achieve them can vary a great deal. Some of them are fairly controversial. Aggravating this concern further is the very nature of the WG work flow in that once this policy is approved and RIPE NCC is tasked with its implementation, it will lose some of its transparency by becoming an internal operational issue. This combination of factors makes the ultimate outcome of the implementation of this proposal somewhat hard to predict. Thus, I still feel this proposal could benefit from any combination of: - A list of arguments and counter-arguments the currently expected implementation is subject to, contained within the draft or as a separate document. - A commitment by RIPE NCC to consult this WG on an exceptional and ongoing basis if this proposal is passed to ensure the operational aspects are aligned with the goals of this WG's members and the community at large. - A set of more concrete draft documents describing the operational outcome from the implementation of this proposal in sufficient detail to allow a voting member to make an informed decision.
Bernhard
-- Respectfully yours, David Monosov
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 10:05:29PM +0200, David Monosov wrote: Hello, BTW, your v6 MX is down :-)
To be honest, my intention to see 2007-01 put in action is to solve the imbalance imposed by the current billing scheme (PA has a recurring, for most networks not too small price tag attached, PI is basically free). Don't tell me PI is not PA because you cannot assign it to other endusers, there are dozens of ISPs that run entirely on PI. The proposal itself states that end users will be subject to a fee. Based on your point above I take it that you favor interpreting this is "a non-trivial fee", and it seems to me that you implicitly suggest it should be higher than the costs the RIPE NCC will incur directly from processing such end user assignments.
I was thinking of about 100 EUR/y. This is not community consensus or has been discussed anywhere, this is the amount of money I thought of a couple of years ago (before 2007-01) when thinking about a model for IPv6 PI. I have accepted that we need some sort of PI, but noone wants the same swamp "everyone who tells a few fairy tales gets free space without any contractual relation" space that was there with IPv4 already. So we discussed a model similar to a domain registrar, with recurring fee paid by the enduser. If it's not paid it expires. Of course it isn't that easy for IP addresses, as you cannot revoke an announcement another ASN is doing that easily. Basically the yearly invoice should start people thinking about whether they still need that resource. Maybe they've merged a decade ago and the only device still using the old address space is the old 9pin dot-matrix printer in the basement. Maybe something else that can be easily renumbered. Maybe it's free already. I've seen "networks" claiming to multihome that run two tunnels through their dynamic SOHO DSL line. Or it seems to be a sport for a number of people in this business to air their own prefix and even ASN, even though they only have their Xbox and their laptop in it and peer with their workplace and a colleague. They won't let go of this, but at least they should be reminded that eats a FIB slot everywhere. On the other hand, whoever _needs_ to be multihomed or _needs_ to avoid renumbering should be able to do that. Serious multihoming is more expensive than the number I had in mind (physical diversity, anyone?). If your network is sufficiently complex that renumbering it takes a long time (=is "expensive" work), then you can invest the money into PI to avoid it as well. And no, I don't believe in that whole "emerging market, we can't pay it, you're killing our industry and our democracy with it" thing that someone is probably going to raise (or at least think).
So basically, bill new resources, get a sensible approach with old resources and finally get PIv6 out of the door. and while I don't see this draft as an explicit condition to getting IPv6 out the door (although I do see the benefits of doing so) and its intention is clear to me,
I do. I will raise hell against any PIv6 proposal that does not include some serious contractual relation with the enduser, and nothing forces updated contact information better than a yearly invoice to be paid.
The trouble, however, lies in the details. For example, while Shane's take on the implementation of this proposal is that it will result in no cost or minimal cost for end users - your interpretation seems to be one of an opportunity to enforce something akin to a routing slot tax which would be sufficiently high to discourage waste; two quite conflicting points of view stemming from the implementation of the the very same policy document!
I don't think 100 EUR/y would be "sufficiently high to discourage (deliberate) waste". It should force people to think about it. Every year when they receive their invoice. Apart from the few hardcore people that think it's their goddamn right to have their appartment network in every FIB worldwide it's a price vs. gain thing for most. At the moment the price is very low, often not directly associated with the resource at all. Thus even a very low gain or no gain at all is enough to keep the resource unchanged (not necessarily "used"). I want endusers to start thinking about this. Again, this number is my personal private opinion, it hasn't really been discussed with anyone. But yes, people expect different things of 2007-01, as with every policy. This is what I'm personally expecting/hoping. But I could not tell whether I'm voicing the single dissenting opinion or people actually agree with my arguments. Bernhard
Hi, On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 11:05:36PM +0200, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
But yes, people expect different things of 2007-01, as with every policy. This is what I'm personally expecting/hoping. But I could not tell whether I'm voicing the single dissenting opinion or people actually agree with my arguments.
Actually I'd like to hear a few more voices regarding this latest version of 2007-01 (v4). We have deliberatly set a fairly short discussion phase to be able to get it *done*, finally, before Dubai, so please voice your opinions now. *Especially* if you have voiced your support for v3 before (or your worries about it), a few lines about v4 would be helpful. Is this properly addressing your concerns? Can you live with the result? Regarding David Monosov's concerns: this proposal has been discussed extensively on three (3) RIPE meetings now, and on the mailing list, so I think all the potential problems it brings have been discussed, and since the APWG mailing list is open to everybody (not only LIRs), everyone affected had a chance to comment on it. If you agree with the general direction, and just have worries about the wording of the "counter arguments" section in the formal proposal, I would tend to *not* do another round (to version 5) of this - the "counter arguments" section is basically there to take acknowledge some of the problematic spots, but it's not really affecting the actual implementation. So this would just delay things further, without real change. (If you think that the whole proposal is very bad, and you disagree with the general intention, by all means say so, of course!) Regarding IPv6 PI: in the discussion regarding this, the mandate was clear: 'we want/need IPv6 PI, but only in a controlled manner, and contracts + recurring fee seem to be the only way to tackle this'. We will restart the discussion on the IPv6 PI proposal as soon as 2007-01 is done (one way or the other). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
David,
One concern I have about the current 2007-01 draft is the lack of arguments opposing the proposal mentioned under the 'Rationale' section of the document. While many such arguments were raised and discussed extensively on this mailing list, the draft itself raises only one such argument and proceeds to immediately dismiss it.
ok, point noted, although I confess that it would have been more helpful if you had raised this before - 2007-01 has been around since June last year.
In the current draft, some of the following objections may still be relevant to varying extent:
- Given the diversity of legal systems the RIPE NCC service region, the success of contractually binding existing resource holders to a new contract and fee is uncertain, and might be the beginning of a long and expensive exercise in futility.
Possibly. Ultimately, the decision about whether or not the retroactive nature of the proposal will actually be put into practice is up to the RIPE NCC board, because that's an operational matter. My understanding is that the RIPE NCC board is taking legal advice on the matter, and if the legal advice is to stay away from the retroactive assignments clean-up, then that is probably what they will do. As regards process length, my understanding is that everyone in the RIPE NCC expects this to be long and probably troublesome. There is 16 years of accumulated detritus in the database, and cleaning it up is neither going to be cheap nor quick. The fee will be set using the normal RIPE NCC budgeting process. There will probably be some adjustment to the fee calculation model that is used for PA resource holders, but again that's operational.
- By attempting to levy a new fee on existing end users of directly assigned resources, RIPE NCC risks creating widespread dissent from these very same end users which had no voting right on this matter and were likely unaware of the proceedings of this WG; in the worst case scenario, this might result in end users utilizing resources regardless of their status in the WHOIS database.
I want a pony! What you're really pointing out is that people have got used to the idea that they were getting something for free and that they are going to whinge about this regime coming to an end. Unfortunately, the free model is broken - number resources cost money to manage and right now, other people are footing the bill for this management. It also creates an environment where PI addresses are actually a more attractive proposition than PA address space, which flies in the face of RIPE's current and past number resource management policies. Both of these issues are serious problems. 2007-01 requests that this model change and that PI resource holders begin to assume some of the responsibilities which they are not currently obliged to. Do I need to talk about rights and responsibilities being different sides of the same coin? Probably not, but it's relevant here. Resource hi-jacking out of contempt could happen, yes. But a PI resource database cleanup will probably help prevent other hijacking vectors. Overall, my gut feeling is that it will improve things. The bottom line is: there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. And much as I want a pony, I'm not going to get one. Actually, I'd prefer free multi-gig ethernet to my house instead of a pony and will gladly accept any offers for same. Please reply to the email address above; serious offers only, if you wouldn't mind.
- Previous experience (domain reg. world) suggests that by putting an explicit price tag on number resources, the "sponsoring LIR" approach in its currently presented form might result in the rise of "discount LIRs". These LIRs would process the bulk of the assignments with no accountability to keep costs low, turning direct assignments into a revenue source and laying waste to many potential benefits which could result from this proposal.
This could happen, yes - I don't believe that it's happened to any huge extent in other RIR catchment areas, but it's not an impossible scenario. Sponsoring LIRs will be charged for PI resources, probably at a different rate for end-users who wish to interface with the RIPE NCC directly. Call it retail vs. wholesale, if you wish, although those are probably not very good terms given the context here. The RIPE NCC does not have any authority to dictate to the sponsoring LIR what the price to the end-user should be, so there will be effectively an open market for sponsoring LIRs to charge what they want for acting as a sponsoring LIR. As there's lots of competition in the ISP marketplace, prices will tend to converge on the price that LIRs are charged. Probably discount LIRs will appear. If they do, so what? They will have to follow the same rules as anyone else. The RIPE NCC doesn't have the resources to micromanage 38000 resource allocations down to the last detail, and we need to acknowledge this (and if they did, they would be an appalling organisation to deal with). There is trust required here, and a realisation that while some abuse will occur, it should be minimised by appropriate means. But again, operational stuff.
- The issue of resource reclamation when resources fall into disuse can potentially be addressed at significantly lower cost and complexity through technological solutions similar to those employed by e-retail outfits for customer account management (automated verification of electronic and snail-mail contacts, IVR verification of phone contacts, regular re-verification).
Indeed, this is correct. However, your proposal doesn't deal with the problem that PI resource holders are getting a free lunch paid for by someone else. Conversely, there's nothing to stop the RIPE NCC from implementing direct PI assignments using something like this, but one way or another, money will be involved. Again, it's outside the scope of 2007-01 to specify to the NCC how to deal with the issue. I don't want to sound like I'm sweeping your concerns about implementation under the carpet by yacking out the "not my problem" line. But, this is the way that the RIPE NCC operates: policy is policy, and operations are operations. Ultimately, the implementation will be done by them and them alone, and given their track record in dealing with registration issues over the past 16 years, I'm pretty happy to see them being given a good degree of latitude to decide how best to implement the policy. After all, they know a lot more about how to manage this sort of stuff than I do. If it turns out that they do things that people don't like, then they will be complained at, which action has historically helped things to improve (e.g. at various stages, hostmaster turnaround times, complexity of forms, etc). There's nothing like a brightly flashing red LED to grab someone's attention. As part of this feedback process, it would be useful to get updates from the NCC at RIPE meetings about how the process turns out in practice. While this isn't the forum to dictate operational matters, that doesn't mean that people aren't interested. And again, given their past history, I would say that it's likely that we'll hear about it from time to time. There are lots of people in RIPE who take pride in their work, and there are few ways to express professional pride better than to tell others about what you do and why it's important to them. Nick
participants (7)
-
Bernhard Schmidt -
David Monosov -
Florian Weimer -
Gert Doering -
Nick Hilliard -
Peter Galbavy -
Shane Kerr