[ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)

On 6 May 2013, at 13:19, Emilio Madaio wrote:

> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
> 
>    https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-07
> 
> and the draft document at:
> 
>    https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-07/draft
> 
> We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments
> to  before 3 June 2013.

	I'm pleased to see the RIPE NCC's Impact Analysis, which seems
	clear, thorough, cautious, and mostly helpful.

	I've used the "Executive Summary" section as a framework for 
	my comments, in context below.  This approach means that the 
	more detailed text in the Impact Assessment is, for the time
	being, out of sight for me.  Because of this, I may ask for
	clarification which is already available to me.

	My comments are made in a personal capacity, without any 
	claim to represent any of the following: my employer, the 
	other co-authors of the proposal, or legacy resource holders.

> 1. The proposal refers to the terms and conditions under which the
> Legacy Internet Resources were originally granted. The RIPE NCC will
> need to be informed as to the content of these original terms and
> conditions to properly determine their impact.

	This need seems to be overstated.  Beyond what is necessary
	to determine whether the party involved is indeed the 
	legitimate holder of the resource in question, what need can
	the RIPE NCC have for the information mentioned?

> 2. The RIPE NCC often receives requests from Legacy Resource Holders
> wanting their resources to be considered as space allocated by the
> RIPE NCC. If this proposal is accepted, the RIPE NCC will have to
> decline these requests.

	This is information of which I was not previously aware.
	I appreciate being made aware of this and intend to ensure 
	that it is taken into account during the proposal's next 
	revision cycle.

> 3. Due diligence checks will be required to verify the legitimacy
> of Legacy Resource Holders. If the correct documentation cannot be
> provided, the RIPE NCC will be unable to enter into a contractual
> relationship with the Legacy Resource Holder.

	To the extent the the diligence applied is indeed "due",
	and conforms with reality rather than with some conventional
	concept or recipe, this seems reasonable.  Due diligence
	needs to be informed by both Balance of Probability and
	Balance of Convenience.

	It seems to me that a test which the RIPE NCC might 
	reasonably use would be whether sufficient trust exists
	for a good-faith belief in the legitimacy of the claim
	to hold the resources in question.

	I expect that the issue here is whether the RIPE NCC can
	safely offer registration services (possibly including
	certification) in each specific case.

> 4. Section 2.1 of the proposal allows Legacy Internet Resources
> to be covered by the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement (SSA). 
> Modifications to the SSA will require approval by the General
> Meeting (GM).

	The GM has the necessary power.

	I expect that it will be for a member with some interest
	in legacy resources to bring forward a proposal that the
	GM exercise this power.

> 5. Section 2.4 of the proposal allows the Legacy Resource Holder
> to engage directly with the RIPE NCC through a special contract
> if they cannot find a sponsoring LIR. The RIPE NCC cannot think of
> any circumstances where this might be the case. Also, the creation
> of such a special class of contract would require approval by the GM.

	My remark to point 4 applies also to point 5.

> 6. Similarly, section 2.5 allows the Legacy Resource Holder to
> conclude no contact due to special enduring circumstances. The RIPE
> NCC cannot think of what these circumstances might be, and some
> Registration Services cannot be performed without a contract in
> place. Additionally, the RIPE NCC will be unable to enforce these
> resource holders to maintain accurate data in the registry.

	[s/contact/contract/]

	The proposal mentions "special enduring or temporary
	circumstances" and also that these be "recognised by the 
	RIPE NCC as being outside the resource holder's control".

	As I understand it, the intent here is fourfold:

     -	that the RIPE NCC have the freedom to deal appropriately
	with unforeseen adverse circumstances on a case-by-case 
	basis;

     -	that awareness of this freedom be available to every
	reader of the policy;

     -	that the RIPE NCC is protected from vexatious or 
	mischievous invocation of this section by the requirement
	for recognition by the RIPE NCC of the nature of the 
	circumstances; and

     -	that the resource holder has a remedy against unreasonable
	refusal of this recognition by recourse to the arbitration
	procedure.

	It is of the nature of unforeseen circumstances that it
	may be difficult to think in advance of what they might be.
	It is not possible, and therefore not necessary, either for 
	the proposers or for the RIPE NCC to itemize in a (final 
	or proposed) policy an exhaustive list of such circumstances.

	It will be useful to have a list of the Registration Services
	for which a contract is required.

> 7. In cases where the Legacy Resource Holder is unknown or
> unresponsive, the proposal allows for the RIPE NCC to update
> entries in the RIPE Database but does not specify the scope of
> these updates.

	The fact that a resource holder is unknown or unresponsive
	should not be an obstacle to the RIPE NCC's exercise of
	its responsibility for the data it holds.  Circumstances
	may arise in which there is a compelling reason for the
	RIPE NCC to make an update.  The RIPE NCC is empowered
	and trusted to act responsibly.

> 8. The provision of some RIPE NCC services is dependent on whether
> the resources are PA or PI. The RIPE NCC will require clear
> guidelines on the terms under which Legacy Internet Resources
> would be offered these services.

	Only Registration Services are within scope for this
	proposal.

	Legacy resources are neither PA nor PI, but LEGACY,
	and need to be supported by Registration Services.

	If the policy proposal is unclear, it will be helpful
	to have this indicated, either by reference to more
	detailed text in the current Impact Assessment, or by
	further clarification.

	Otherwise, the preparation of operational guidelines
	consistent with RIPE policy as developed from time to
	time, seems to me to be the responsibility of the RIPE 
	NCC, subject to due oversight and confirmation from
	the community.

> 9. Currently arbitration does not apply to Legacy Internet
> Resources.  Amendments to the arbitration procedure are subject
> to approval by the GM.

	Please see my comment to point 4.

> 10. If the proposal is accepted, the RIPE NCC will have to contact
> Legacy Resource Holders that have their resources registered under
> the umbrella of an LIR and offer them the contractual options of
> the accepted proposal. The RIPE NCC will consider any requests for
> this since 1992 as having never been submitted.

	If such a LIR is acting as an ad-hoc registration intermediary,
	the situation may be seen as sufficiently irregular as to
	require attention whether or not the proposal is accepted.

	Otherwise, a variation to a Sponsoring-LIR agreement will
	be needed, which is the responsibility of each LIR involved.

	I'ld like to have further explanation of the last sentence,
	referring to 1993, as I don't understand it.

> 11. If the community decides that this proposal should allow for
> the certification of Legacy Internet Resources, the RIPE NCC will
> need to create a certification system specific to these resources.

	Probably.

	I understand that another current proposal aims to allow 
	certification of PI resources.  It may be opportune to 
	create a multivalent certification system supporting 
	different kinds of resources.

> 12. The RIPE NCC is seeking guidance from the community on who
> should be considered the legitimate holder of Legacy Internet
> Resources that have been distributed through several layers
> of hierarchy.

	This is a significant problem, which arises whether or
	not the current policy proposal is accepted.

	I'm not sure what specific impact this policy proposal 
	has on the problem.  I can see that it changes the context,
	but neither that it makes the problem either more or less
	intractable nor that it affects the nature of the work to
	be done.

> 13. RIPE Database objects referring to Legacy Internet Resources
> currently have several different "status:" attribute values.
> The RIPE NCC proposes changing these to 'LEGACY'.

	This seems reasonable.

> 14. The RIPE NCC also proposes introducing a mandatory "status:"
> attribute for all AUT-NUM objects which would take the value
> 'LEGACY' for all legacy AS numbers. For all other AS numbers
> the values would either be set to 'ASSIGNED' (assigned by the
> RIPE NCC) or 'OTHER' (assigned by other RIRs).

	This also seems reasonable.


	Best regards,
	Niall O'Reilly