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

>> as one of those who think arin's approach to this is insulting and
>> legally unjustified, i would be quite cheered by a more even-handed and
>> less self-righteous example being set by ripe. 
> So what do you propose how to tackle this?  

i was supporting nigel saying that the board was working on a reasonable
and fair contractual structure.  i have nothing against offering holders
of historical space reasonable contracts for keeping whois and rpki
certificates and dns delegation.

i do have a problem of confiscating their rights if they choose not to
sign.  instead of escalating threats and breaching the long established
contract, perhaps hesitation to sign can be treated as problem in
communication and maybe a weakness in common understanding of rights,
concerns, ...

we are all a community.  we do have fairly common interests.  perhaps
there is a path building on the common ground instead of polarizing and
us and them games.

> I assume that you don't worry about requiring the contracts for *new*
> end-user assignments, but only worry about retroactively applying those?

i am more open than that.  i hope/think there is a large space for
agreement on formalizing the relationship(s) over historical space.

take a look at section nine of the arin contract.  it is that kind of
thing to which i object.

randy