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

On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 10:57:41PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>On 24/01/2013 13:33, Emilio Madaio wrote:
>> The text of the policy proposal 2012-07, "RIPE NCC Services to Legacy
>> Internet Resource Holders", has been revised based on the community
>> feedback received on the mailing list.  We have published the new
>> version (version 2.0) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set
>> for the proposal.

>- 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.

Why wouldn't they? RIPE is not a government that can tax things that
used to be free or make policy and charge fees for resources they do 
not own. IMO any LRH who wants to ignore this (and other) policies until
the death of the universe is entirely justified in doing so.

>- 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.

I should be very careful in proposing this in policy. Judging on past
record, this will be implemented as an onerous pile of bureaucratic
misery. Hardly likely to entice a LRH to engage with the NCC.

>
>- the proposed policy does not touch on the subject of transfer of
>resources to third parties.  I think this should be dealt with, and that
>the RIPE NCC should be required to accept any transfer of resources to
>third parties.

Is that a requirement that the NCC *accepts* the transfer or a
requirement that the NCC has approval on thoise transfers?


>- I'd like to see a requirement for publication of sponsorship details.

I will strenuously oppose any policy including such a requirement. I've
exhaustively detailed my reasons for that in the 2012-08 thread. 

>- the proposed policy does not touch on the subject of deregistration.  I
>believe that it is important to deal with this, as otherwise the RIPE
>community has no mechanism for garbage collection of resources.  The
>alternative is for the RIPE community to believe that the current set of
>LHRs will continue to exist until the fall of civilisation and that in this
>period, they will continue to be the canonical holders of the relevant
>resources.  Not credible.

IMO, back to the IANA pool whence they came. IANA can sort out
allocation to RIRs as needed.

>- the root contention with this policy still remains:  what happens to
>those organisations who decline to pay a registration payment and who
>decline to sign any contract?  This policy proposal fails to establish a
>quid pro quo in this situation.  The RIPE NCC does not operate on a zero
>cost basis, and it is only fair that those who depend on its registration
>services be required to pay for this.  I can understand that many LRHs will
>have an idealogical objection to this but as King Lear said, "nothing will
>come of nothing".

Lear misunderstood his daughter greatly when he said that, if I remember
my Shakespeare correctly. 
IMO, quality-of-records overrides here and while a LRH might not care
about their space being correctly registered (and hence refuse to pay
for it), others in the community may have other ideas.

>holders (after due diligence on identity performed), and that LRH resources
>handled by sponsoring LIR be provided with the same services as PI address
>space?

With the NCC as ultimate mntner? Don't think so. 

Overall, the policy is still best summarised as: "It's a trap!" Well, as
long as the LRHs enter said trap voluntarily, fine with me. 
So, I'd expect to see basic reg services to continue if a LRH does not
engage, for whatever reason. I'm sure the community sees the quality of
the db as the overriding goal too and I don't think absorbing this
relatively small amount of extra effort will overtax the NCC.

cheers,
Sascha Luck