[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2007-01, "Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC"

Hello Axel,

I think you and/or the NCC board has misinterpreted the proposal.

> Preferred model
>
> The Executive Board anticipates that this proposal will introduce a dual 
> model whereby an End User can chose to have *either* a contract with a 
> "sponsoring Local Internet Registry (LIR)" or directly with the RIPE NCC.

This is correct, however;

> Direct contracts with the RIPE NCC
>
> The Executive Board also understands that the proposal introduces the 
> option for those End Users who cannot form a contract with a "Sponsoring 
> LIR" to form a contract directly with the RIPE NCC. In this case the End 
> User will be required to set up an LIR and become a RIPE NCC member.

This is not. It is intended that there will be a new kind of contract 
between the RIPE NCC and the End User. It is specifically not intended to be 
an LIR contract. Nick Hilliard proposed the following in his RIPE 55 
presentation:

End-user can deal with RIPE NCC directly
- envisage a web based auto-signup procedure
- fully automated, no human interaction
- registration expires unless bills are paid

He also included a transfer method in his presentation:

Careful transfer method required, to deal with:
- friendly transfer from LIR to LIR
- transfer from hostile LIR at end-users’request
- transfer from LIR to RIPE NCC
- transfer from RIPE NCC to LIR

As you can see, this does not fit with your / the boards interpretation of 
the policy. Therefore the following part of your message does not seem to 
apply anymore:

> After extensive discussion, the RIPE NCC Executive Board does not believe 
> that the addition of a draft contract to proposal 2007-01 is necessary.

I would like to ask the RIPE NCC Executive Board to make a draft contract 
which conforms to the intentions of policy proposal 2007-01.

Thank you,
Sander Steffann
Address Policy WG co-chair