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

At 11:14 29/08/2012 +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>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.

Nick,

As much as it would appear fun and amusing to make il.iucc into a punching 
bag for RIPE NCC legacy  policy, in addition to ideas stated here to take 
away our legacy IP allocations and give us /22s and force us to use NAT and 
reengineer our 10,000 node university networks, I think I will stop posting 
here and await to see what general policy is accepted by RIPE NCC for 
legacy IP space.

-Hank

>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