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

> The main difference v2 -> v3 is that ERX space has been 
> completely taken out [because RIPE has no legal basis to 
> enforce anything - we'll come back to this with a new 
> proposal], and that there is a *new* document that describes 
> what to do with existing end-user assignments - which has 
> exactly the same intent as v2, but we can't put requirements 
> for existing assignments into a "new assignments" documents, 
> so this needed cleaning up.

I still think that we are making this more complex than it needs
to be and the language is horrible. How hard is it to say:

   All applicants for Provider Independent resources must have a
   signed contract with RIPE or with an LIR before receiving such 
   resources. Existing holders of Provider Independent resources 
   received from RIPE LIRs or from RIPE, must sign a contract 
   with RIPE or with an LIR before 01Dec2009 or RIPE will take 
   back the resources.

One improvement would be to give the standard contract a name like 
ARIN does. They call their contract a Registration Services 
Agreement or RSA. This allows them to say things in plain English
such as "An RSA must be signed before ARIN will issue resources to
the applicant".

If we use the term RSA, then it seems to me this policy is trying 
to say:

- All applicants for Provider Independent resources must sign an
  RSA before receiving any resources.
- Any existing holders of Provider Independent resources must sign
  an RSA before The-End-Date or RIPE will take back their resources.
- An RSA can be signed with RIPE or with an LIR.
- If a PI resource holder ceases their business relationship with 
  an LIR, then they must sign an RSA with a new LIR or with RIPE
  within 2 months or RIPE will take back their resources.
- RIPE will provide a standard RSA contract for LIRs to use.
- The RSA will include:
   - point a
   - point b
   - etc.

But the language is unclear so I'm not sure. Also there are some things
that don't make sense to me. Why is the applicant responsible for making
sure that a contract is signed. RIPE or the LIR should be responsible
for
making sure that a contract is in place before resources are issued. And
RIPE or the LIRs should be responsible for chasing existing resource
holders
to get contracts signed.

So, in general I support the ideas behind this policy. I just wish that
it
was structured differently and written more clearly.

--Michael Dillon

P.S. my comments about language have nothing to do with the fact that it
is
in English. I would say the same things if it were in French or German.