[ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 Discussion Period extended until 21 February 2013 (RIPE NCC Service to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)

On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 01:12:43PM +0100, Daniel Stolpe wrote:
> >in general, this is a vast improvement on v1.0 and I think it could
> >feasibly form the basis of a working policy, but there are still some
> >shortcomings and omissions which need to be dealt with.
> 
> In general yes. Well done so far.

Agree. 

> >LRH == legacy resource holder
> >
> >minor nits:
> >
> >- 1.0 introduction: some legacy resources were assigned by the InterNIC
> >after the creation of the RIPE NCC, so it is incorrect to define LRHs as
> >those who "were granted internet resources before the creation of the RIPE
> >NCC".  A similar comment applies to the definition given in 1.1.
> 
> Might seem minor but the definition certainly has to be correct.

OK, 1.0 introduction wording can be improved a bit. 

But, the definition in 1.1:
--
Legacy Internet Resource: Any Internet Resource granted before the current system of hierarchical distribution (by allocation or assignment) through the Regional Internet Registries became operational.
--
seems to mimic a definition of "Early registration" in ripe-581:
 https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-581/
 ...
 1.2 Early registration: IPv4 address space assigned or allocated before the establishment of the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs)."

This ripe-581 definition of an early registration probably implicitly assumes a time point of establishing a RIR in the respective region an IPv4 address space was allocated/assigned through. 

Back to the proposed 1.1 wording, IMO the current system of hierarchical distribution is unlikely to be considered operational before InterNIC ceased to exist and ARIN became operational. 

> >larger grievances:
> >
> >- I don't believe that there is a requirement for section 2.4.
> >Disregarding that the RIPE NCC has ended the possibility of directly
> >assigned resources for general PI holders (which I think has direct
> >relevance to this), I don't accept that a legacy resource holder couldn't
> >find one out of the current 8800 RIPE NCC members that wouldn't be
> >appropriate for a sponsorship contract.
> 
> It does sound odd that when we are going away from the direct relation 
> between the RIPE NCC and end users we are suggesting new relationships of 
> the same kind.
>
> Find an LIR or become one. That should be enough.

Are you also suggesting that RIPE NCC should stop providing a PI holder 
(a non-member) with a possibility to become a Direct Assignment User 
via signing a direct contract with NCC (ripe-518)? 

> >- section 2.5: you can't be serious?  "due to specific enduring or
> >temporary circumstances"??  This is a carte-blanche for any LRH to ignore
> >this policy until the heat death of the universe.
> 
> I feel a bit lost here. What circumstances are we talking about?

Just thinking out loudly. Perhaps, a disputed resource holder identification 
or existence? That's a case when a second paragraph in the section 2.5 
is to become applicable. 

> >- there is probably a requirement for the LRHs to provide some form of
> >formal identification about who they are and why they have a claim on the
> >resources they claim to hold.  For sure, the RIPE NCC cannot certify
> >resources without a reasonable level of due diligence.
> 
> This is usually the biggest obstacle in my experience. We regularly help
> LRH:s with these matters and I think there should be clearer definitions 
> of the paper work needed for identification. We are often talking about 
> events 15-20 years back and since many LRH:s are large corporate groups 
> they have often changed names and structure a few times since and now they 
> have no idea what documentation to provide to prove they are acually the 
> same entity.

Maybe RIPE NCC can help here, since mergers, takeovers and cease to exist 
situations do happen with LIRs or PI holders as well. And RIPE NCC is likely 
to have some experience in this area. Though, there are differences 
complicating the matter a bit. No initial relationship between the RIPE NCC 
and a LRH and a rather long time span. Have some of the related issues 
been sorted out during the ERX project?

I support the proposed policy 2012-07 as it is. Sure, the text can 
be improved and I'm likely to restate the support in such case. 

Martin