On 23 Aug 2012, at 23:11, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Apologies, I omitted the following:
- the right for the RIPE NCC to withdraw a basic service if and only if an equivalent other service is provided, potentially charging the ERX holder for the new service (section 5.1.2)
I think there may be a conflict in the proposal here between the proposed rights of the ERX holders (i.e. the NCC must provide the basic services as stated and must not coerce the ERX holder into paying in any circumstance), and this suggestion (the RIPE NCC may completely withdraw a specific service and replace it with something equivalent, and by doing so may potentially coerce the ERX holder into paying for the new service). Or did I read it incorrectly?
Nick, Whether due to your reading or my writing, I can't say, but you did miss the intent. On both sides of the apparent conflict which you identify, I think you've read more into the text than was intended. The point here is about availability of basic services (implicitly from the NCC) or of an equivalent service package (not necessarily from the NCC) at a price for either which is reasonable by reference to the current market price of a comparable service package. I expect that this will be clearer in the next (formally: initial?) draft. I could say more, but it's probably best to wait until the formalities have been respected and we properly have a draft to discuss. Best regards, Niall