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

On 29.08.2012, at 13:19 , Nigel Titley wrote:

>> On 29/08/2012 12:09, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> So the issue is really a question of balancing the rights and
>> responsibilities of both the RIPE NCC and the ERX holders.  This is why I
>> asked last week if there was an agreement in place between the InterNIC and
>> the RIPE NCC for handling the ERX transfers - if there was a formal
>> agreement in place, then it needs to be given serious consideration when
>> the RIPE community forms a new policy for the RIPE NCC which can be applied
>> to the address space, because the terms of that agreement may still be
>> binding on the RIPE NCC.  If there was no agreement in place, then more
>> options are open.
> I'll be surprised if there was no agreement. Can someone from the RIPE NCC comment?

Comment from someone involved at the time who happens to work at the RIPE NCC:

ERX was an activity of the RIRs undertaken upon request from their communities. It was structured by informal agreements which were adapted in the light of experience and governed by the respective RIR governance processes. No higher authority authorised ERX. IANA was informed and welcomed the effort to increase the quality if the Internet Number Registry.

I do not consider this a relevant question at all. The InterNIC does not exist anymore and it is questionable if it ever existed in a legal sense. To a lesser extent this goes for IANA as well, but there is general acceptance of the authority of the IANA. 

The RIPE community can freely decide policies for registrations in the RIPE Internet Number Registry. There are a small number of boundary conditions, such as good faith towards address space users and the laws of the Netherlands. Previous agreements about address space distribution to which the RIPE NCC was not a party are not part of them.

See also my longish contribution of a few minutes ago

Daniel