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

Hank Nussbacher wrote:

> At 01:31 06/02/2013 +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> 
>> Removal of registration as a long term prospect: this will be necessary.
>> There is undoubtedly a pile of ERX address space which is either squatted
>> or abandoned.  As a long term objective, I think that there is some
>> duty of
>> stewardship that makes de-registration of data a requirement.  Maybe we
>> don't need to deal with it in 2012-07, but it is inevitable on a 20-50
>> year
>> basis.
> 
> 
> I agree.  If the inetnum or autnum is unused

In principle I agree, but I fail to see why this is a special case for
LRHs? IMO this is outside the discussion of a policy for offering and
administering registration *services* provided by the RIPE NCC.

> and not routed

How would you, the NCC or actually anyone, "prove", that an address block
is "not routed" (or in use)? We had that a couple of times already, it is
a non-starter to begin with.

> for the past
> 5 years, and all attempts at contact via email

There has been a good reason, why the email attribute has been optional :-)
IMHO, nowhere in Internet-Policy and -Operations Land a requiement does exist
or has ever existed to operate globally accessible port 25 services (or more
modern versions thereof) in order to obtain address blocks or AS numbers for
use in an IP-based (inter)network <please note the lowercase *i*>.

OT - but maybe worth noting: the same expectation that such an obligation
exists seems to be held by some parties in the abuse-management discussions...

> to the data listed in
> whois, then by all means, initiate some sort of squatting/abandoned
> project.

As a (future) project, yes, with proper authorisation from the membership
which has to foot the bill, and after reasonable assessment of cost vs.
merits ;-)

> But this has nothing to do with LRH, but should be a RIR policy.

Yes to part 1 and maybe to part 2.

> -Hank

Wilfried