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

> The general direction is great and I think this update to the proposal
> is a huge improvement on v1.0, but do not support the policy proposal
> as it stands because it still has critical problems.  The most
> important of these problems is a discussion / decision about what to
> do with registration services for legacy resource holders / legacy
> resources who do not engage with the RIPE NCC.  There are other
> serious problems with the proposal too, and a couple of nits which are
> easily fixable.

nick,

do you happen to have constructive ideas or text for the issues you
raise?

< personal opinion >

if they are unresponsive or do not wishfees to engage, i am torn between the
need for the best whois and dns data we can publish and being pretty
cold.  this, of course, assumes that we make it non-onerous for them to
engage.

> It also provides multiple options for LRHs to completely ignore the
> RIPE NCC forever.  I don't believe that this constitutes good
> stewardship of resource registration on the part of the RIPE NCC.

unfortunately, that is the status quo.  and we kind of have a historical
obligation to allow them to ignore the ncc.  but perhaps a carrot, as
opposed to a stick, can significantly improve this.

> I don't believe that there is a requirement for section 2.4.  [...]  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.

there are lrhs who, for organizational reasons, can not sign under an
lir.  and they also do not wish to give up rights to the lh implied by
existing lir contracts, <tactless> or to pay rental for integers for
which the rir has never been the landlord. </tactless> 

the alternatives you suggest have existed for some time.  no one was
attracted.  as an engineer, i try to judge by the results.  2.4 is meant
to be a reasonable compromise, good data, a real relationship, and small
fees for services actually provided.

---

i think sander said it well:

> This proposal tries to bring the legacy resource holders and the RIPE
> NCC together under mutually acceptable conditions to create a
> situation of good stewardship as far as possible. It won't be perfect.
> Address space got given away without any conditions attached at the
> beginning of the internet, and now we have to deal with that.

suggestions on how to better achieve these goals would be greatly
appreciated of course.

randy