The transcript of the RIPE NCC Services WG session at RIPE 64 (https://ripe64.ripe.net/archives/steno/16/) records the following exchange:

AUDIENCE SPEAKER: Nigel Titley, Chairman of the board of the RIPE NCC. Just a very quick note. The charging scheme task force has delivered its report. The board is due to consider that report starting in June of this year. Could I urge you to at least give us some idea of what your policy might say fairly early on so that we can consider that?

NIALL O'REILLY: Noted.

The group of us working on drafting a policy proposal have identified most of the key elements which will be included, but a presentable proposal won't be ready without some more work. In order not to miss the opportunity which Nigel kindly took care to point out, here is "some idea of what [the] policy [proposal] might say". I expect that the main elements of the forthcoming policy proposal will include the following. Current inaccuracies in the RIPE database should be corrected without additional formality, and specifically without forcing a contractual relationship. Each legacy resource holder should have the choice of registering holdings either directly as a "small" member or indirectly as a customer of a sponsoring LIR. We understand that this matches current NCC thinking. Clarity is needed as to which RIR policies will apply to legacy resources. It is not sufficient to declare these resources subject to "all" policies, as the RIR may not have authority to apply certain policies in respect of legacy resources. It will be necessary to itemize which policies are applicable. Whenever an "obvious" potential sponsoring LIR can be identified, the NCC should request this LIR to make contact with the resource holder rather than do so directly. Such cases might be identified either from existing RIPE DB records or from current routing information. There is specific concern in the NREN community that NCC members' relationships with their customers be respected in this way. We gave more detailed attention to the question of charging, as we understand that this is a current priority of the RIPE NCC Board. We are aware of two current documents relating to charging: one, the report of the Charging Scheme Task Force (CSTF); the other, a limited-circulation document co-authored by a group for which Daniel Karrenberg has been acting as editor. The latter document may perhaps be most conveniently described as a memorandum for the Board, giving an example of how the recommendations of the CSTF might concretely be implemented. We welcome the specific attention given in this "Karrenberg document" to the situation of legacy resource holders, and particularly the idea of encouraging engagement of legacy resource holders by waiving the sign-up fee. We also appreciate the suggestion made at the TERENA conference in Reykjavík recently by Mirjam Kühne, representing the RIPE NCC, that fees would not be charged in respect of legacy resources. Some clarification as to the conditions attached to this offer, including an indication of how long it will continue, would be helpful. Although it is certain to be superseded, we have used RIPE-499, which documents the 2011 charging scheme, as the starting point for indicating how we feel that legacy resources should be assessed in case a resource accounting assessment model is to be used in the new charging scheme. We propose that legacy address blocks are assessed with a score of one eighth of the score assessed for a PA block of equal size. We also suggest a modification to the "Karrenberg document" so that a sponsoring LIR will not be inhibited from accommodating legacy resource holders by concern over a possible change of charging band. Attached are modified versions of Appendix 1 of RIPE-499 and of Appendix F of the "Karrenberg document" which make these suggestions explicit. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly