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

At 15:21 04/02/2013 +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>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,

2.5 states "However, notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, the RIPE NCC 
may refuse to provide any specific registry service for which particular 
technical requirements apply, which the Resource Holder is unable to meet."

So my reading is that for 2.5 - RIPE NCC can refuse any registry service.

>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.

and 2.6 states "In such a case, the RIPE NCC will continue to provide those 
registry services which are already being provided in respect of the Legacy 
Internet Resource or Resources involved, and may update the related entries 
in the RIPE Database from time to time to correspond to current actual 
situation."

What do you propose to do for an organization that got IPs in 1990, routes 
those IPs (meaning they are in use) and doesn't respond to any RIPE NCC 
email, letter or phone call?  To me the options are:

a)  RIPE NCC just deallocates and deletes the allocated blocks
b) RIPE NCC does nothing and does exactly what it does today

I do not think RIPE NCC has a legal basis to do (a).  That leaves (b). If 
you can find a better alternative please state it since it would be a 
welcome option.

-Hank


>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