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

Randy Bush wrote:

[...]
>>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.

Indeed.
Coming back after stating my general support yesterday, to one of the
individual issues that may benefit from changes:

I don't remember who already pointed fingers at the ROA service (thanks!),
but we - eventually - may have a pretty convincing carrot by offering the
"Certification of these data;" (which I read as being ROA and future friends)
only to LHRs that have established a formal relationship and are paying for
the service according to 2.1 ... 2.4.

Certification is a service that has been developed recently by the RIRs,
so IMO there is no legacy "right" here. This would apply for the cases
described in 2.5 and certainly 2.6.

[...]
> ---
> 
> i think sander said it well:

+1
Wilfried

>>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