[ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources Moved to Last Call

Daniel,
exactly, all this administrativia is in our mind. PI objects have no privileges in comparing with PA, nothing is hidden. We don't need to know who is collecting the payments for LIR sponsoring. As well as we don't need to know who exactly signed the contract or what is a birthdate of PI owner's CEO.

RIPE-452 condition check is performing by the RIPE NCC and I am satisfied with this. The good thing is that NCC decided on obligatory publication of PI holder name. That is enough, I believe.

2007-01 is not yet completely implemented, there are some PIs without the sponsoring LIR remains. Let the NCC work on this.

--
Sergey

On Oct 16, 2013, at 12:34 PM, Daniel Suchy <danny at danysek.cz> wrote:

> IP address space is a technical ressource in general. Difference between
> PI and PA is just administrative, assigned IP address will always work
> independently on it's status.
> 
> For PA address space, financial-related informations ale published
> already (should be, by policy), there's no real reason to hide similar
> informations for PI address space. By publishing sponsoring LIR, only
> existence of relationship between LIR and End-User is visible. It's not
> about detailed contract content (financial aspects).
> 
> Members of RIPE also should be able to verify, if ripe-452 policy is
> implemented properly by RIPE NCC. Publication of sponsoring LIR provides
> this option. There should not be some "dark" IP spaces, where we'll not
> able to found responsible LIR.
> 
> Policies aren't developed on GM. There's no reason to postpone this
> until GM. This proposal brings more transparency and it was discussed
> properly within WG.
> 
> With regards,
> Daniel
> 
> On 10/16/2013 11:01 AM, Sergey Myasoedov wrote:
>> Randy,
>> you are right and I am not trying to decide whether we do have consensus as I am not a chair of WG. 
>> 
>> Kurtis,
>> Please consider my message as a comment to a proposal. I already posted my thoughts before, and I hope the reason of objection is clear. Let's postpone the implementation of proposal until next GM (or until the board decides not to put this question to GM agenda).
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Sergey
>> 
>> 
>> On Oct 16, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Sergey Myasoedov <sergey at devnull.ru>,
>>>>> as for me, there is no clear consensus.
>>> 
>>> Kurtis:
>>>> you can appeal this decision if you believe we have acted in error.
>>>> However, I would like to point out that consensus does not mean
>>>> universal agreement, and I still believe there is a consensus for this
>>>> proposal in the WG.
>>> 
>>> perhaps sergey would find draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt helpful
>>> 
>>> consensus != unanimity
>>> 
>>> randy
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>