<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>Hi,<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>As I read the email the question in the email is to provide feedback. �<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>How the feedback from the community is used is something that is a different matter. <o:p></o:p>Getting feedback doesn’t mean that a decision is made.� �<o:p></o:p><div> >�� 1. Sign an agreement with their sponsoring LIR (a RIPE NCC member) to > �� have the resources certified by the RIPE NCC via the sponsoring LIR. In > �� this case, the sponsoring LIR would be responsible for periodically > �� verifying that the PI End User is the legitimate holder of the >�� resources. <o:p></o:p>No questions there … <o:p></o:p><![if !supportLists]>� <![endif]>However, the RIPE NCC will in all cases be responsible for issuing the resource certificate and providing access to the RPKI management interface. Therefore, PI End Users should, at all times, be able to change from one sponsoring LIR to another while still retaining the same certificate for the resources that they hold. <o:p></o:p>I agree that PI End Users should be able to change sponsoring LIR, however the new Sponsoring LIR will have to go through the paperwork. <o:p></o:p>What I would rather see, is that the ROA is re-setup instead of migrated.� <o:p></o:p>I’m not exactly sure why, but to me that would be a cleaner way of dealing with moving from sponsoring LIR to another.� <o:p></o:p><![if !supportLists]>� <![endif]>The cost associated with this option lies in building a framework in the LIR Portal to facilitate the process, some administrative overhead, and the additional burden on the RPKI infrastructure, that would not be funded by the direct beneficiary of the resource certification service. These costs would come out of the general RIPE NCC budget and would therefore be funded by all RIPE NCC members, however it is unlikely that this would have any direct impact on future membership fees.<o:p></o:p>It might be good to get some kind of budget for this, before we make assumptions if this would have an impact on the future fees. <o:p></o:p>That might also provide some insight if the current fee for PI resources are covering the fees or if there is change needed.� <o:p></o:p>As PI space has a cost (also in the current charging scheme), it should be looked at if the cost for this, can be covered by the PI resource fees, not increasing the member fees. <o:p></o:p><![if !supportLists]>� <![endif]>Alternatively a PI End User may choose to: 2. Become a RIPE NCC member, pay the full annual membership fee and receive a certificate directly through the RIPE NCC. The Executive Board feels that offering both of these options will result in relatively little impact on membership fees while offering all PI End Users the opportunity to certify their Internet number resources without being forced to become a member of the RIPE NCC.<o:p></o:p>No questions on the option becoming a member, that should always be an option …<o:p></o:p><![if !supportLists]>� <![endif]>For the sake of completeness, we also present a third scenario discussed by the Executive Board that would involve giving PI End Users that have received resources through a sponsoring LIR the option to deal directly with the RIPE NCC without becoming a RIPE NCC member or needing to make contact with their sponsoring LIR. They could do this by authenticating the relevant INETNUM object using their MNTNER, and supplying additional information directly to the RIPE NCC (company registration papers, business address details, contact email, etc.) on a periodic basis (probably every 12-18 months). This option would not entail any fee or contractual agreement for the PI End User.<o:p></o:p> However the Executive Board does not see this as a viable option, as the amount of resources required to check the necessary supporting documentation and other administrative overheads would be too large a financial burden on the RIPE NCC membership. The lack of a periodically-renewed contractual relationship with the PI End User, while providing them this service, may also cause complications.<o:p></o:p>I agree that this might not be the best option. I would prefer to have the End-User deal with the Sponsoring LIR (or RIPE in case it is a Direct End-User)<o:p></o:p></div>But it should be discussed with the community if there should be a method for a PI End-User to deal directly with the RIPE NCC (via an online process). �<o:p></o:p>I don’t think that the Exec Board should dismiss that option upfront. �<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Also, it should be looked into if there will be an additional charge for the PI Certification process… <o:p></o:p>Will PI space holders see the value for themselves if there is a choice of paying and getting their resource certified. There is clearly more work involved for all parties. <o:p></o:p>If the process is approved, it might be best to not have a separate cost for the certification process, but rather check if the current cost of PI resources need to be looked at when this is going to included. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>On the topic how and where this should be discussed and more importantly where that should be decided, is something for a new thread imho. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Regards,<o:p></o:p>Erik Bais <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p></div></body></html>