[ncc-services-wg] Destruction of trust

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for explaining that apparently there is a communication issue.

Sander Steffann raised an important issue in his email:
--
But more importantly: RIPE-452 is a result of policy proposal 2007-01,
and that proposal explicitly excluded ERX resource holders from being
required to sign such a contract. Quoting from 2007-01
(http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01/draft): "This
proposal does not cover number resources marked in the RIPE database as
Early Registration (ERX) or NOT-SET.  It also does not cover number
resources listed in the RIPE database which were assigned by InterNIC or
assigned or allocated by other Regional Internet Registries."
--

Unfortunately you haven't responded to this issue yet. Can you please
elaborate on this issue?

regards,
Rogier

On 7/19/12 5:03 PM, Andrew de la Haye wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> In Phase 3 of its legacy space project, the RIPE NCC is sending emails
> to contact legacy address space holders who are not RIPE NCC members and
> who hold a /16 or more.
> 
> In the emails we are sending, all three options, including the option to
> register legacy address space with a sponsoring LIR, are presented to
> the organisations. However, in the case of contact with three
> organisations, an email was mistakenly sent that did not mention the
> option to use a sponsoring LIR.
> 
> We regret this mistake and apologise sincerely for the confusion and any
> distress this might have caused.
> 
> We are contacting the organisations concerned to ensure that the correct
> message is delivered and that they are aware of all options available to
> them.
> 
> The RIPE NCC understands that "freezing" registry entries would be
> counterproductive and would not help its goal of ensuring registry
> correctness. The RIPE NCC has no intention of freezing registry entries
> for legacy resource holders.
> 
> Also, the RIPE NCC would like to assure legacy address space holders
> that it has no intention of withdrawing reverse DNS services for legacy
> address space holders.
> 
> The certification of address space, however, is available only to RIPE
> NCC members.
> 
> Thank you for raising the issue and for giving us the opportunity to
> clarify these matters. As Marcus has pointed out, the information
> concerning the project is available on our legacy webpages:
> http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/legacy-space
> 
> We will update the documentation concerning the project in the coming
> days to accurately reflect the situation.
> 
> Again, we apologise for the error and ask that you contact us at
> <legacy at ripe.net> if you have any questions or concerns. Or let us know
> via discussion on the list.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Andrew de la Haye
> Chief Operations Officer
> RIPE NCC
> 
> On 7/19/12 4:11 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Giving some background information related to address policy:
>>
>>> If I've understood correctly, both option a) and b) above involve in
>>> effect abolishment of historical grants and contractual submission
>>> to all current and future RIR address policies and procedures which
>>> are deemed to be relevant, with, I'm sure, the RIPE NCC interpreting
>>> what is relevant.  No grandfather clauses, acknowledgement of
>>> historical rights or explicit limitations anywhere in sight, and no
>>> option to amend the template contract imposed by the RIPE NCC.
>>
>> The template is defined in RIPE-452:
>>
>>> ---
>>> The details of any such contracts are outside the scope of this
>>> document.  However, at the minimum, all contracts should include:
>>>
>>> • Notice that the LIR is responsible for liaising with the resource
>>> holder to keep registration records up-to-date
>>> • Notice that the resource holder is obliged to provide up-to-date
>>> registration data to the LIR and that some or all of this
>>> registration data will be published in the RIPE WHOIS Database
>>> • Notice that none of the provider independent resources may be
>>> sub-assigned to a third party
>>> • Notice that the resource holder is obliged to pay an annual fee to
>>> the LIR for the resources
>>> • A clear statement that the resources will return by default to the
>>> RIPE NCC if
>>>     • The resource holder cannot be contacted
>>>     • The annual fee to the LIR is not paid
>>> • A clear statement that the use of resources is subject to RIPE
>>> policies as published on the RIPE web site and which may be amended
>>> from time to time
>>> ---
>>
>> The first two requirements are what is important according to the
>> activity plan ("The goal of these activities will be to bring ERX and
>> legacy space registration records up to the same standards of accuracy
>> as address space distributed by the RIPE NCC since 1992."), and I
>> don't think anybody objects to that.
>>
>> The next point about sub-assignments is a problem. Current legacy
>> holders don't have any restrictions on what they can or can not do
>> with their address space. This would suddenly limit what legacy
>> holders are allowed to do, and possibly even make their existing
>> network setup break the contract.
>>
>> The next two points about paying the bills and the addresses returning
>> to the RIPE NCC if the bills are not paid also change the rights of
>> the legacy holder. When they don't sign the contract their records in
>> the database are frozen and the RIPE NCC "cannot guarantee the
>> continuation of reverse DNS". If they sign the contract and then not
>> pay the bill they lose all rights to the address space....
>>
>> The last point is the most obvious problem for legacy holders. Now the
>> legacy holder is subject to no policy at all, and after signing such a
>> contract they are suddenly subject to all current and future RIPE
>> policies. I fully understand that legacy holders don't want to sign
>> such a contract.
>>
>> But more importantly: RIPE-452 is a result of policy proposal 2007-01,
>> and that proposal explicitly excluded ERX resource holders from being
>> required to sign such a contract. Quoting from 2007-01
>> (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01/draft): "This
>> proposal does not cover number resources marked in the RIPE database
>> as Early Registration (ERX) or NOT-SET.  It also does not cover number
>> resources listed in the RIPE database which were assigned by InterNIC
>> or assigned or allocated by other Regional Internet Registries."
>>
>> So, following the acceptance of 2007-01 by the community: if the RIPE
>> NCC requires legacy holders to sign such a contract (contract with
>> sponsoring LIR) they are doing something which directly contradicts an
>> accepted RIPE policy... If any legacy holder already signed such a
>> contract I strongly feel that they should either be given the option
>> to void the contract, or the contract should be declared void
>> automatically.
>>
>> - Sander
>>
>>
> 



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4410 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20120719/1b36b27d/attachment.p7s>