[ncc-services-wg] 2012-07's direct engagement option

Dear Sascha,

>> The RIPE NCC may not de-register the legacy resources unless asked to do
>> so by the resource holder. Moreover, if the contract (with the member,
>> the sponsoring LIR or DAU) is terminated, the resource is simply flagged
>> "No contract".
>
> AIUI, if a resource holder extends the SSA to cover legacy resources,
> there is a risk that if the NCC is unhappy with the LIR wrt *these*
> resources, the LIR could be sanctioned and lose their *other* resources.

To my understanding, if the NCC has any problems with any _legacy_ resources,
they may terminate only the _legacy_services_ (see:
http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/may-2014/supporting-documents/UpdatetoClosureofMemberandDeregistrationofInternetNumberResources.pdf
part "C. Legacy Internet Resources", paragraph 1.1.

> That is pretty effective control in my understanding.

I am afraid this is a misunderstanding.

> This logic also now makes it clear why Option 2.4 is needed, an existing
> LIR may mitigate this risk by having their legacy resources covered by a
> separate, more individual, contract.

I do not think this was the reason for making option 2.4 available. The
authors could either confirm or deny this.

> Interesting in this context is also the statement that under option 2.3,
>
> "the RIPE NCC will not allow the Legacy Resource Holder to become the
> sponsoring LIR for its own Legacy Internet Resources."

I think the reason for this is that the resource holder and the sponsoring
LIR have to sign a contract. How could the two parties of a contract be
the same entity?

Nevertheless, extending the contract to cover the legacy space too is
cheaper for the member (they do not have to pay the 50 EUR per legacy
assignment).

Best regards,
Janos

>
> rgds,
> Sascha Luck
>
> PS: I hold no legacy resources so I don't really have a pig in this
> race.
>