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

On 05/02/2013 20:42, Sascha Luck wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 10:57:41PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> - 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.

If they want to ignore this policy, then they should go ahead and ignore it
- until the heat death of the universe.  I have no problem with that.

The point is that running a registry costs money:

> http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/september-2012/documents/draft-ripe-ncc-activity-plan-and-budget-2013

The figures aren't particularly important in this context, but there are
costs and they are not insubstantial.

Given that there are tangible ongoing costs associated with running the
registry, it's not unreasonable to expect that all resource registrants
contribute to the running of this service through one mechanism or other.

To be clear, I fully support sections 2.1 to 2.3 in the proposal and have
no problem with e.g. LIRs which are legacy holders discharging any
obligation of this form via their regular membership fees.

My concerns relate to the relatively small number of organisations who feel
that because they have not been asked to pay registry service fees since
the resources were registered over 20 years ago, that the RIPE NCC is
therefore obliged to provide ongoing registration services to them in
perpetuity.  I don't believe that this is a reasonable position to take
because this position is all take and no give.

>> - 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.

If you have alternative proposals for resource certification which don't
involve some form of due diligence, I'd be mightily interested to hear them :-)

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

to be defined.  I agree with someone else's comments (can't remember who -
Wilfried maybe?) that this is probably best dealt with separately.  Best
get this proposal dealt with first and then deal with other issues scu

> Overall, the policy is still best summarised as: "It's a trap!" Well, as

No need to be scary-conspiratorial here.  I'm not sure if you've noticed,
but the holders of the address space are working towards a situation with
the organisation which they own, which will benefit everyone in the long
run.  Oh wait, I left my tin hat off for a moment and the government mind
control machine took over, zomg!! :-)

Nick