[ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources)

Dear colleagues,

>From the RIPE NCC's point of view, the agreement between the LIR and the
End User can be terminated for any reason. If the LIR wants to terminate
their agreement with an End User, they can always do so. It is then the
responsibility of the End User to find a new sponsoring LIR.

The model agreement gives a notification period of three months, but any
agreement that includes the minimum requirements set by the policy is
acceptable. The inclusion of a specific notification period is not one of
the minimum requirements.

It's worth mentioning that the RIPE NCC will not obligate LIRs to
terminate their agreements. If the policy is accepted and an LIR does not
feel comfortable with publishing their names in relation to a particular
client, it is up to the LIR to terminate that agreement based on the
agreement's terms.

Kind regards,
Marco Schmidt
Policy Development Office

> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 02:33:08PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
>>You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
>>
>>    https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-08
>
> To recap: my main point of contention with this proposal is that it
> creates a perception of responsibility of the sponsoring LIR for the
> actions of the end user - which does not exist beyond keeping the
> ripedb updated. Thus it creates an attack surface for those who see it
> as their duty to keep the internet free of <insert agenda here>.
> Which will make it hard to impossible for a controversial or otherwise
> inconvenient independent resource holder (or applicant) to find or keep
> a sponsoring LIR.
>
> Impact Statement:
>
> "During implementation of this policy, the RIPE NCC will contact those
> organisations acting as sponsoring LIRs to notify them of this change
> and allow them time to react appropriately, by reviewing their
> sponsoring LIR agreements and terminating any they do not want to be
> associated with (or even all of them)."
>
> The wording is ambiguous and may refer to resources "brought in" under
> 2007-01/Phase III, but it can be read as if a sponsoring LIR will get
> an opportunity to break a sponsorship contract with an inconvenient
> end-user, thus orphaning them before an attack even happens.
>
> I would ask the NCC to please clarify the intention of this sentence,
> and note that
> https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/independent-resources/independent-assignment-request-and-maintenance-agreement
>
> does specify a notice period of 3 months for termination of the IR
> contract, otherwise we're looking at a case of Breach of Contract.
>
> For the record and the avoidance of doubt: I still oppose this proposal
> for the above mentioned reason.
>
>
>
> Kind Regards,
> Sascha Luck
>
>
>>
>>We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments
>>to ncc-services-wg at ripe.net before 20 May 2013.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Marco Schmidt
>>Policy Development Office
>>RIPE NCC
>>
>>
>
>
>