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

Hi Nick,

We published information and procedures for Phase 3 at the following URL 
but possibly it could be more prominent and easy to find:

http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/2007-01-phase-3/implementing-phase-3-ripe-policy-proposal-2007-01

We will look at improving the location of this page and adding some 
additional information.

Best regards,

Ingrid Wijte
RIPE NCC

On 8/18/13 6:56 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Hi Ingrid,
>
> Thanks for clarifying this.  Would it be possible to put this information
> up on the web site?  I had a quick look around, but couldn't find anything
> related to 2007-01 phase 3 procedures other than ripe-569.  This document
> gave some information on the general process from the RIPE NCC point of
> view, but doesn't explain clearly what the End Users' rights were, or
> provide information about what escalation procedures are available.
>
> Nick
>
> On 16/08/2013 15:02, Ingrid Wijte wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>