[address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

Hi,

Disclaimer: the organization i work for is a LIR and has legacy resources 
(both self-owned and sponsored).

>From a personal perspective, i would have preferred that no status changes 
are possible at all. However, some years ago, i did let that personal 
preference fall, in order to achieve a greater good, which was enabling 
RIPE NCC services to Legacy Resource Holders (proposal 2012-07, from 
aug/2012 to oct/2013).

The bit i (still) don't like in the status change is "rewriting history". 
If it was pre-RIR, then it should remain pre-RIR. Because changing it can 
have some future (and unforeseen) implications. But the possibility of 
status change was included anyway in the proposal, as long as the holder 
agrees, in the process to regulate how RIPE NCC provides services to 
LRHs (which was, honestly, needed).

>From the financial point of view, if the status is kept, EUR 50 per legacy 
block per year need to be payed (and the sucessive NCC boards have not 
changed the value since), and if the status is changed then the resources 
are binded to RIPE community policies, which might translate as 
integration in a LIR... so no extra EUR per year are payed.

The possible pitfall with changing the status is if the LIR violates RIPE 
policies (more than once), and then the *former* legacy block can be 
de-registered...

My understanding (and i'm not a lawyer, so i won't risk any comments about 
liability) is that the RIPE NCC can't force anything to a Legacy Resource 
Holder, outside the established contract for services provision. That one, 
also states the possibility for the RIPE NCC to stop providing said 
services -- but this doesn't mean de-registering. In practice, it means no 
access to the Certification service. Not sure about reverse DNS, though...

To sum up, i agree with Gert... and as i see it, the only thing RIPE NCC 
(and or the community) can do about legacy space is stop providing 
services -- but not, perhaps the most important one: registration in the 
whois database.

Cheers,
Carlos



On Sun, 14 Jul 2019, Erik Bais wrote:

> Hi Jordy, 
> Legacy resources don?t fall under the contractual obligations that we as a community have setup. Financial or policy, unless decided/afreed upon by legacy resources themselves. 
> That is described in the policy document RIPE NCC services for legacy resource holders.  ( https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-639 ) 
> 
> If you would view the RIPE NCC as a holder of IP space, that provides resources when a membership is present. If a member would not pay, the resources could be revoked. Legacy holders didn?t receive the resources from RIPE NCC and
> their resources can?t be revoked. As the RIPE NCC isn?t the top holder of the resource. If legacy is handed back, it would ( should ) go to IANA ..
> 
> With the legacy services policy it was decided that the historic rights of legacy holders are honored and only if they decide that they want to include themselves in the community and services, it is possible. But only by their own
> decision. 
> 
> Stripping the legacy resource status after a transfer, would change the holder of the resource from the seller to the rir instead of the seller to the buyer. 
> 
> The RIPE NCC is providing an administrative service to maintain an accurate registry, also including Legacy resources.. 
> 
> Changing the legal status of legacy resources by force, will open up the RIPE NCC for liability charges and due to its monopoly in the RIPE region, that is not a good plan ... and knowing some Legacy holders, that is going to be a
> huge no-go. 
> 
> Your last email stated that non-legacy holder to non-legacy holder transfers are outside the system .. if we regard the RIPE policies inside the system ... non-legacy resources are ?IN?the system.. because you would say that they would
> be PI holders or RIPE NCC members ( LIR?s ) ... 
> Legacy holder can be outside ( no contract ) the rir status .. or by their own choice inside the system .. 
> 
> Hope this explains a bit. 
> 
> Regards,
> Erik Bais 
> 
> 
> 
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
> Op 13 jul. 2019 om 14:49 heeft JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> het volgende geschreven:
>
>       Hi Gert,
>
>       If the received of the transfer is already bound by contracts with RIPE, he is the one that will "convert" the resources to non-legacy accepting that transfer.
>
>       Of course, transfers from non-legacy holders to non-legacy holders are outside of the system.
>
>       Regards,
>       Jordi
>       @jordipalet
> 
> 
>
>       El 13/7/19 14:43, "address-policy-wg en nombre de Gert Doering" <address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net en nombre de gert at space.net> escribió:
>
>          Hi,
>
>          On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 02:27:03PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
>             If legacy holders, want to transfers those resources and escape from fulfilling the policies and contractual requirements, now they can do it in RIPE, but not in other regions.
> 
>
>          Repeat with me: there is no contract of any sort that the RIPE community
>          can use to make legacy resource holders do *anything* unless they want
>          it themselves.
>
>          (And if they *want* to bring their space under the RIPE umbrella, they
>          can do it today already).
>
>          Gert Doering
>                  -- NetMaster
>          --
>          have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
>          SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
>          Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
>          D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
>          Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
> 
> 
> 
>
>       **********************************************
>       IPv4 is over
>       Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>       http://www.theipv6company.com
>       The IPv6 Company
>
>       This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
>       disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended
>       recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you
>       must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>