Hi Hans Petter, On 22/04/2014 21:14, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
I guess this was to abstract for me.
Ok, I'll try to be more blunt. :-)
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?
Me? I don't. I'm delighted to be a member. There are others on this list who's already spoken up about why - they want to get the services they've already been getting without being members, and are willing to make a contribution toward that. The whole premise of 2012-07 was that accepting this is the best way to ensure an accurate registry.
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.
I disagree, and 2012-07 is very specific about why. These were already services being provided for free to non members. This never meant that those services should be offered for free to everyone else. RIPE NCC wanted to change the rules here, not the legacy resource holders. We found what I had thought, with the consensus call last February, was an agreeable solution.
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.
I fully accept that the board has a responsibility that it cannot decline to ensure the financial health of the RIPE NCC. I don't accept that the policy process can never have any input on this area, just because charging is a matter for the RIPE NCC and its membership structures. The implementation of *any* policy is a matter for the RIPE NCC and its membership structures. Collision between the two could arise on any aspect of a policy. We should make every effort to avoid collision (and I know we've had problems with this lately.) But separating policy formation from any discussion about how to recover the cost exacerbates this problem. It leads to exactly the sort of situation where the charging scheme can be used to render inactive segments of policy without going back through the PDP. Best regards, Dave -- Dave Wilson, Project Manager web: www.heanet.ie HEAnet Ltd, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 tel: +353-1-660-9040 Registered in Ireland, no 275301 fax: +353-1-660 3666