[ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 Discussion Period extended until 1 March 2013 (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources)

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013, Peter Koch wrote:

>> The Discussion Period for the proposal 2012-08, "Publication of
>> Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources", has been extended
>> until 1 March 2013.
>
> the proposal lists three supporting arguments:
>
>> This mechanism provides a simple means for End Users to identify with which
>> sponsoring organisation they have a contractual link, in the case this
>> information is unknown to the End User.
>
> This appears overly artificial to me: why would an End User not know who
> they contracted with and why is a public listing of this information the
> appropriate cure?  I do not buy this argument.

Well, you seem to be missing the point here. It is by no means artificial. 
We see it quite often. And the answer is that the sponsorships is rather 
an entry in some hidden RIPE db than a contract. When an end user is asked 
"Do you have a sponsoring LIR for this resource and if so, who is it?", 
the answer is usuallu "We have no idea". And the only way to be certain is 
to send an email to the RIPE hostmasters.

>> This policy simplifies the mechanism for verification and co-ordination
>> between sponsoring organisations when an End User wishes to transfer
>> resources from one sponsoring organisation to another.
>
> This is a derivative of the first argument, even though it does not state
> the nature of the envisioned 'verification and co-ordination'. It is the
> End User's job to make available, where necessary, the supporting
> documentation.  I do not buy this argument.

Let's say you do have the documents in the first situation. How do you 
know they are still valid? Yes, we used to be sponsor for this resource 
but how do we know that in RIPE:s point of view, we still are?

>> Publishing this information provides an additional means for tackling
>> abuse issues on the Internet.
>
> So, "if all else fails", we claim it will help fighting "abuse"?
> What is the underlying expectation here?  Is a 'sponsoring LIR' in any
> way responsible for traffic generated (or sunk) at the 'sponsored'
> address space?  I cannot buy this argument.
>
> Since the proposal does not list any valid supporting argument, I am opposed.
>
> -Peter



I am in favour.

Regards,

Daniel Stolpe

_________________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Stolpe           Tel:  08 - 688 11 81                   stolpe at resilans.se
Resilans AB             Fax:  08 - 55 00 21 63            http://www.resilans.se/
Box 13 054							      556741-1193
103 02 Stockholm