[address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)

Florian,

[ I realize the contents of this post may be somewhat controversial.
  In fact, I expect most people to oppose the basic ideas. ]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:11:59AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> 
> > http://ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-new-draft-2007-01-v3.html
> 
> I don't think recovering resources from unwilling end users is a
> good way to spend the membership fees.  (I don't speak for any
> member, though.)  And unless there is a clear incentive (which I
> don't see--the thread of revoking the assignment is not particularly
> convincing), a lot of end users will be unwilling.

I also don't speak for any member, but I think revoking assignments is
a fantastic idea.

In fact, I don't see how it makes sense to do otherwise.

Someone claims to be the authorized user of some addresses. *Nobody*
has any relationship wth this person. The only evidence you have is
that at one time in the past someone was assigned the addresses.

Sure, I can call the people peering with the originator of the
advertisement, and see why they are carrying the traffic. They might
or might not be willing to give me that information, or privacy or
business reasons. Also, all because it is convenient for them to carry
the advertisements does not mean somebody else won't do the same
thing for the same space for a different originator. And finally, we
have a perfectly workable system so I don't *have* to go through this
kind of nonsense: the RIR system.

If people are unwilling to sign a contract which basically says, "I am
using this address space", then take their space back. It's not scary,
really.

Revokation is a good thing.

--
Shane