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

On 04/02/2013 14:53, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
> 	You seem to be making a different reading of the proposal from
> 	the one I'm making.

my reading of the proposal is that if a LRH wants to engage with the RIPE
NCC for registrations services either directly or via a LIR or within
existing / new LIR capacity, they can do so.

However, section 2.5 carves out an exception for organisations who feel
that they are unable to sign a contract for whatever reason, and 2.6 carves
out an exception for a broad category of organisations ranging from those
who no longer exist to those who have no interest in engaging with the RIPE
NCC and decline to answer their phone or reply to emails.

This exception appears to entitle these resource holders to continued
service on a permanent basis.

As an aside to this, the proposed policy and several other people have
asserted that there is category of organisations who would be unable to
sign a contract for ip registration services either directly or via a
sponsoring LIR.  Could you elaborate on some concrete examples of this?
I'm finding it difficult to understand how the set of organisations who
registered IP addresses in the years before 1992 are different from the set
of organisations which registered IP addresses via the RIPE NCC such that
it's not possible for the former to engage in contractual relationships
which seem to be completely standard for the latter.

Nick