[address-policy-wg] 2014-08 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region")

On 23/10/2014 21:50, Peter Koch wrote:
> In this case, the change appears straightforward even if should vs must was
> interpreted in a natural language context. On second thought, it remains
> undefined what the "basic requirements" are (leaving another ambiguity)
> and it isn't clear whether the list of exemptions is exhaustive.  As an
> example: is the NCC undergoing a regular or case by case audit and
> who is supposed to execute that?  Arbiters are supposed to evaluate
> requests, but how would the NCC's adherence to the "basic requirements, [...]
> such as returning unused resources" be supervised?  There's no vox populi
> appeal to the arbiters.
> But wait, we have a general community involvement in the NCC's operation
> and my perception was it was considered functioning.  So, I'm not
> really convinced that an s/should/must/ would prevent the NCC from running wild
> if it wanted to.  On the other hand, I might be looking forward to
> future policy proposals and further should vs must (or similar) discussions
> except that the PDP rarely provides the right slot for this level of detail.
> In other words: what's being tried to fixed here is likely to happen again.

Peter,

You may have misunderstood this one.  The change from "should" to "must"
refers explicitly to the 6 points which need to be included in all end-user
contracts, namely:

>  -   Notice that the LIR is responsible for liaising with the resource holder to keep registration records up-to-date
>  -   Notice that the resource holder is obliged to provide up-to-date registration data to the LIR and that some or all of this registration data will be published in the RIPE WHOIS Database
>  -   Notice that none of the provider independent resources may be sub-assigned to a third party
>  -   Notice that the resource holder is obliged to pay an annual fee to the LIR for the resources
>  -   A clear statement that the resources will return by default to the RIPE NCC if
>         The resource holder cannot be contacted
>         The annual fee to the LIR is not paid
>  -   A clear statement that the use of resources is subject to RIPE policies as published on the RIPE web site and which may be amended from time to time

re:

> Back to 2014-08: it's either unnecessary or incomplete.

It looks like an eminently reasonable proposal to me.  It was never
intended that these six points be optional.

Nick