[address-policy-wg] regarding housecleaning efforts in absurdum

Dear Nick and others,

As requested, I am writing to provide clarification about the process 
the RIPE NCC follows to establish the legitimate holder of PI address 
space, and to outline how a case may be escalated.

As mentioned earlier, Registration Services is currently in contact with 
hundreds of potential PI resource holders. For the most part, the more 
straightforward cases have already been resolved. What is left now are 
those cases where things are not quite so clear-cut: a resource may have 
changed hands several times, and there is often no paper trail 
documenting this. In many cases, these resources have never been 
announced or have not been announced for a very long time, etc.

Every potential resource holder is given three months to produce 
documentation that demonstrates the legitimacy of their claim. We 
sometimes give extensions when we feel that good progress is being made. 
However, at some point we do have to start the de-registration 
procedure. From here, the potential resource holder still has an 
additional 90 days to find the required documentation.

We explore a number of options to find a satisfactory solution. In cases 
where all available options have been exhausted but the IPRA feels 
reasonably certain about the legitimacy of the claim, they may escalate 
the request to management for a final decision. Similarly, the IPRA may 
also escalate the matter, either at the request of the other party or 
following internal procedures if the communication becomes difficult. If 
no agreement can be reached even after the matter has been escalated, we 
inform the potential resource holder that they can ask their potential 
sponsoring LIR to object to our decision via the Arbiters Panel. During 
arbitration, all ongoing processes are frozen.

You can find out more about the RIPE NCC's Arbitration Process here:
http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/legal/arbitration

Finally, I would like to highlight that out of the thousands of 
resources we have dealt with as part of the 2007-01 project, very few 
cases that have come this far. In the overwhelming majority of 
(legitimate) cases, we are able to resolve matters satisfactorily for 
both parties. Regarding the request that started this thread, please 
note that we will do our best to resolve this matter with the other party.

Kind regards

Ingrid Wijte
RIPE NCC


On 8/14/13 5:20 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 14/08/2013 16:08, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> No, that hasn't happened because the person didn't know about it.
> It's the same as dispute resolution everywhere else: if there is an issue
> which isn't resolved on the front desk, then you escalate.  The Arbitration
> / dispute resolution process is not as well known as it might be, but it
> has existed for donkeys years:
>
> http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/legal/arbitration
>
>> Personally I dislike a policy that requires someone to know innards of RIPE
>> NCC in order to get reasonable treatment. As far as I can tell, the
>> hostmaster in question didn't offer these alternatives.
> It sounds like there may be scope for the IPRA team to educate PI holders
> on their options, and this might be something that the RIPE NCC management
> to think about.  This will end up being fairer for the PI holders, and will
> also protect the RIPE NCC from allegations of unfair practice.  Phase three
> of 2007-01 will produce difficult cases.
>
> Could someone from the RIPE NCC comment on general procedures surrounding
> what they might do in circumstances where there the holdership of the PI
> resources is unclear?  And what the escalation options are?
>
> Nick
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130816/033e8a07/attachment.html>