[ncc-services-wg] comments on proposal 2012-07

Hello,

I thought I'd chip in on 2012-07.

The current version of the proposal is a huge improvement on v1.0 and
thanks / kudos need to go to the authors for what was obviously a huge
amount of work.

I still have issues with a number of areas.

Serious issues:

Section 3.0 needs to include a term in the contract to state that the
services provided by the RIPE NCC to the legacy resource holder are defined
by RIPE community policy and may be amended from time to time, according to
ripe community policy.

Section 2.6 still provides carte blanche for legacy resource holders to
freeload services off the RIPE NCC with no consequences.  As a RIPE NCC
member, I am not at all happy about this.  The amount of work that the RIPE
NCC is going to have to undertake to handle the legacy resource holder
community is very large indeed, and it is not reasonable to expect the RIPE
membership to foot the bill for those legacy resource holders who aren't
members and who feel un-inclined to contribute towards registration
services just because they couldn't be bothered to pay.

Section 2.5: I see where this is coming from, namely there will probably be
situations where the users of the address space will be unable to identify
themselves adequately as having any claim to their assignment.  However,
this section is open to abuse and it concerns me that it's still there.  I
concede that there is a requirement to have some type of arrangement like
this, but the wording of the current section needs to be tightened up
considerably.

Less serious issues:

Section 2.4 is redundant.  We have a well established precedent under the
terms of 2007-01 for engaging with sponsoring LIRs and this seems to work
well in practice.  Creating this policy option merely adds cost to the RIPE
NCC's bottom line for no gain.

Nits:

Section 3.0: "a statement that the RIPE NCC is not entitled to deregister
the resources for whatever purpose unless so instructed by the resource
holder".  This statement is advisory only and it needs to be made clear
that the sponsoring LIR does not have power to make a legally binding
statement of this form.  This actually applies to all four statements in
section 3.0.

Nick