[ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders

On 22/08/2012 17:28, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
> 	Please find an initial version of our proposal attached.

I've attached some thoughts on this proposal (which I note is formally
pre-publication, so these thoughts are premature).  These are observations
only - I'm not expressing any opinions because it's not appropriate to
express an opinion before the PDP formally starts and I haven't finished
formulating my opinions yet.  If the proposal authors feel that there are
any inaccuracies / misrepresentations / omissions here, I'd be happy to be
corrected.

If it would be more appropriate to wait until this document is formally
announced before discussion, then I'm also happy to wait until then.


Background:

There are just over 3000 ERX registrations listed in the RIPE database.

The proposal identifies in a roundabout way that the core problem is the
lack of an existing governing contract between the ERX holders and the RIPE
NCC and that in order to resolve this, the existing ERX holders should be
invited on a no obligation basis to enter into a formal agreement with the
RIPE NCC.  In return for this invitation, the proposal creates a policy
which will copperfasten the service levels which ERX holders were receiving
prior to October 2011.

There are two sides to the problem.  On the one hand, ERX holders obtained
address space without a governing contract and have been enjoying the
benefits of this for many years.  On the other hand, someone is footing the
bill for the maintenance and upkeep of this registration data - namely the
RIPE NCC membership.

Historically, the ERX holders have been happy with this situation as they
received all of the privileges of address registration which were available
to RIPE-assigned space and none of the responsibilities (i.e. payment).
Notably, they were sufficiently happy that no-one saw any need to change
the status quo by formalising this situation through a bottom-up policy.

Clearly this wasn't working for the RIPE NCC, as they unilaterally withdrew
the ability to perform record modifications.  This was done without a
mandate from the RIPE community or prior notice to the ERX holders.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this situation or how it came about,
resolution is clearly necessary.  The ERX holders have abruptly been
disenfranchised, and the RIPE NCC's responsibilities as steward of these
resources are consequently not being carried out.  Neither of these
positions is tenable as a long term proposition.


Policy Resolution:

A policy resolution needs to be found which will accommodate the wishes of
the ERX holders (right of use / updates / transfers / sale / assignment of
rights / contractual certainty), the RIPE community (requirement for
responsible stewardship for a RIR), the RIPE NCC (payment for services
received, contractual certainty) and the RIPE NCC membership (potential
objection of subsidisation of non-members for ongoing services)

There is a broad spectrum of potential approaches to resolution, ranging
from spontaneous policy proposition by the ERX holders to unilateral action
by the RIPE NCC to impose a policy determined by the RIPE community, with
the decision making process being based on bottom-up consensus through the
PDP, right through to a top-down decision being decided by the dutch legal
system.

In the absence of any existing agreement between the individual ERX holders
and the RIPE NCC, it is not clear what the RIPE NCC's legal obligations are
with respect to each individual ERX holder.


The Current Proposal:

As a side note, it is not clear to what extent this proposal reflects the
viewpoints of a representative sample of ERX holders.

The proposal suggests the following balance of rights and responsibilities:

Rights of ERX holders:
	- right of use
	- right to have registration data kept up to date (registrant data,
reverse DNS)
	- right to surrender the assignment
	- right of transfer / corporate succession / personal succession of
assignment under the same terms as enjoyed by the original holder
	- the right to choose whether or not to enter into a formal contractual
relationship with the RIPE NCC (either directly or indirectly) concerning
these registrations
	- the right to choose whether or not to pay the RIPE NCC to maintain these
registrations
	- the right that these rights be unaffected by any other relationship that
the ERX holder has with the RIPE NCC
	- the right that this framework be declared as the basis of any future
discussion
	- the right that these rights be declared as immutable in perpetuity
	
ERX holder responsibilities:
	- none, unless the ERX holder chooses otherwise
	- if the ERX holder chooses, then:
		- payment of fee which is guaranteed to be lower than direct assignment
		

RIPE NCC rights:
	- the right to charge for RIR services over and above those listed by the
proposal as ERX holder rights

RIPE NCC responsibilities
	- to agree explicitly to the rights claimed by the proposal
	- to maintain the data in the RIPE database
	- to perform updates / modifications / transfers as directed by ERX holders
	- to be responsible for ensuring that contact is made with all ERX
resource holders
	- to agree to underwrite any cost associated with implementing this policy
which is not recovered under the terms of section 5.5 of the proposal,
passing on responsibility and costs to LIRs in the first instance

If any of the policy proposers feel that this is unfair / inaccurate
summary of the proposal / the situation, or if they feel that there are any
omissions, please feel free to correct me.  This email is not intended as
an opinion piece and should not be read as such;  I'm simply trying to
understand what is being said in the proposal - it's long, complicated and
is a first draft in attempting to deal with a particularly thorny issue
which is fraught with political difficulties and legal uncertainties.

Nick