[ncc-services-wg] Destruction of trust

At 15:36 18/07/2012 +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote:
>Hi,
>
>as you may be aware, the RIPE NCC is currently engaged in an
>activity to establish contact with legacy address space holders,
>and among other things to set up a contractual relationship
>between the RIPE NCC and the legacy resource holders.
>
>However, it is my opinion that the current RIPE NCC actions with
>legacy resource holders is destroying some of the valuable trust
>they have built in the community over the years.
>
>It has been said that "the RIPE NCC does what the members tell
>them to do".  That does however not appear to be the case for
>this action, where the RIPE NCC appears to act in a policy-free
>zone, simply on executive decision.  Despite the RIPE NCCs
>knowledge that work is ongoing to formulate a policy for this
>area, they are barging ahead, possibly in an attempt to establish
>a fait accompli.

It is indeed a shame that the RIPE NCC is plowing ahead without a mandate 
from the membership to be doing this.  It is indeed a shame that the 
hundreds of legacy IP holders now view the RIPE NCC in a totally different 
light then they did previously.  I do not quite understand the urgency the 
RIPE NCC sees in forging ahead quickly rather than taking the time to 
discuss the matter in a calm and non-pressured environment.

I am indeed clueless as to why they are doing this.

-Hank


>The message sent to the legacy resource holders does not mention
>the option which would probably be most preferable to at least
>most of our customers, namely registering the resources via the
>LIR at their service provider.  One could suspect the RIPE NCC
>has self-interest in driving up the number of LIRs, to increase
>the number of paying customers of the RIPE NCC.
>
>Some of the documents about the approach with legacy resource
>holders has mentioned a "stick and carrot" approach.  I'll claim
>that the stick is needlessly sharp and the carrot reeks of
>decomposition.  Explanation:
>
>  * The stick is primarily the "we cannot guarantee in-addr.arpa
>    name service".  Without it, a user will in practice be unable
>    to operate mail servers within the affected address space,
>    which would be a severe blow to those who still actively use
>    their address space.
>
>    The freezing of the registry data is an inconvenience which
>    will ensure that the accuracy of the data whittles over time,
>    an action initiated by the RIPE NCC no less...  Many legacy
>    resource holders have not updated their records in a long time
>    already (many didn't have an actual need to do so), so while
>    inconvenient, it's not as strong a stick as the threat of
>    removal of the in-addr.arpa delegation.  It should however be
>    noted that the whittling of the registration data over time
>    also is detrimental for the RIPE community at large, not only
>    for the address space holder.
>
>  * What's the carrot?  Only the removal of the stick from above?
>    What makes the carrot particularly rotten is several things:
>
>     * The open-ended and unliateral application of "all relevant
>       RIPE NCC policies and procedures".  The fear would be "we
>       will mire you or your LIR (or both) down in pointless
>       address policy work to document ancient history, and have
>       the RIPE NCC verify (or deny, as the case may be) all
>       assignments done over time" (applicable where address space
>       has been used in PA-fashion).
>       ...or for PI-style assignments, the assignment itself might
>       be challenged.
>     * The highly uncertain status of the charging scheme in the
>       longer term for the legacy resource holders, where the
>       initial proposal to modify today's model had, with no
>       discussion, abolished the "age based discount", and where
>       current discussion is rampant with "payment per IP address"
>       schemes.  The fear is that the RIPE NCC will gouge the
>       legacy resource holders either directly or indirectly,
>       "motivating" them to hand back the resource.
>     * The lack of recognition that these addresses were assigned
>       under a different policy.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that
>       at one time you would be handed a class-B instead of 4
>       class-Cs because there was fear of growth of the routing
>       table.  Does the RIPE NCC now want to challenge the
>       assignments?
>
>In sum, this makes the RIPE NCC appear more as an extorting bully
>rather than an agent who has the accuracy of the address register
>as its foremost priority, and this destroys some of the valuable
>trust they have built in the community over the years.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>- Håvard