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

Hank,

On 29/08/2012 01:07, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> At 23:20 28/08/2012 +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> then does IUCC maintain some sort of beneficial claim of registration over
>> subnets of the blocks you list - the sort of claim that would entitle you
>> to say that because this was IUCC space rather than IUCC member space, that
>> it really ought to be covered under IUCC's LIR membership for any future
>> potential argument about a RIPE ERX policy?
> 
> Only IP space that remains maintained under our LIR/NREN (il.iucc).

It is not maintained under il.iucc, because il.iucc is a legal construct
which exists between the RIPE NCC and IUCC.  The only address space managed
by il.iucc is 2001:0bf8::/32.  Any other address space handled by IUCC have
is either ERX or outside the scope of the RIPE NCC.

[...]
> My answer would be "Whatever is decided upon by the RIPE membership and not
> unilaterally by RIPE NCC management".  But your initial comment of "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." is clearly wrong in
> many cases since il.iucc has been "footing the bill" for all ERX space
> listed under its LIR.

Not really, no.  The entry in alloclist.txt for il.iucc is:

> il.iucc
>     IUCC - Israel InterUniversity Computation Center 
> 
>     20030508    2001:0bf8::/32
> 

There's no mention of any ipv4 address space, and il.iucc is categorised as
"extra small".  I cannot see how this means that il.iucc is footing the
bill for maintenance of the registry entries any more than every other RIPE
NCC member is.

>> And if there is a precedent for tacitly
>> agreeing that e.g. commercial / governmental ERX assignees are not subject
>> to any NRENs' beneficial claims over the address space for whatever reason,
>> then on what basis are you claiming that the NRENs have any beneficial
>> claim over their members' address space?
> 
> Because in our case, the members (read universities), are the "owners" of
> the NREN.  Legally speaking.

I understand the distinction - I've been working with member-owned
organisations for a long time.  However legally speaking, the assets of a
member-owned organisation are owned by that organisation, not by the
members.  The organisation as a whole belongs to the members.

Do I have a right to take Axel Pawlik's laptop?  He works for the RIPE NCC,
and ie.netability is a member of the RIPE NCC, and I own ie.netability.
Based on your assertion, I might have some sort of claim to taking it, but
the legal reality is that I have no claim whatsoever.

Let me put it another way: what would happen if a member were to leave your
NREN?  Does IUCC stake its claim on the addresses at that point or not?
And if not, then on what basis do you stake any claim on the IP address
space now?  And as a secondary issue (to ownership, but not to the point
you were originally making), if you are not staking a claim on beneficial
interest in the address space now, then why are you claiming that they
should just be bundled in as something similar to ALLOCATED PA address
space from the point of view of your LIR membership in any future agreement
with the RIPE NCC - except that you're also claiming in the policy document
that it shouldn't be counted towards a LIR allocation, but should be
charged as strictly less than a PI assignment per block.

Hank, I'm not trying to be confrontational here.  There's an important
issue which I'm trying to get to the bottom of, namely the issue of where
the rights and responsibilities lie between the address assignees and their
historical registrars.  So far I've seen nothing to suggest that the
registrars have any sort of reasonable claim to the address space other;
nor have I seen any indication that the assignees have given informed
consent to these claims.

These are important issues because they are pretty much guaranteed to
become problems in situations of changes of circumstance (potentially such
as this one).

Nick