[ncc-services-wg] Destruction of trust

Hi,

as you may be aware, the RIPE NCC is currently engaged in an
activity to establish contact with legacy address space holders,
and among other things to set up a contractual relationship
between the RIPE NCC and the legacy resource holders.

However, it is my opinion that the current RIPE NCC actions with
legacy resource holders is destroying some of the valuable trust
they have built in the community over the years.

It has been said that "the RIPE NCC does what the members tell
them to do".  That does however not appear to be the case for
this action, where the RIPE NCC appears to act in a policy-free
zone, simply on executive decision.  Despite the RIPE NCCs
knowledge that work is ongoing to formulate a policy for this
area, they are barging ahead, possibly in an attempt to establish
a fait accompli.

The message sent to the legacy resource holders does not mention
the option which would probably be most preferable to at least
most of our customers, namely registering the resources via the
LIR at their service provider.  One could suspect the RIPE NCC
has self-interest in driving up the number of LIRs, to increase
the number of paying customers of the RIPE NCC.

Some of the documents about the approach with legacy resource
holders has mentioned a "stick and carrot" approach.  I'll claim
that the stick is needlessly sharp and the carrot reeks of
decomposition.  Explanation:

 * The stick is primarily the "we cannot guarantee in-addr.arpa
   name service".  Without it, a user will in practice be unable
   to operate mail servers within the affected address space,
   which would be a severe blow to those who still actively use
   their address space.

   The freezing of the registry data is an inconvenience which
   will ensure that the accuracy of the data whittles over time,
   an action initiated by the RIPE NCC no less...  Many legacy
   resource holders have not updated their records in a long time
   already (many didn't have an actual need to do so), so while
   inconvenient, it's not as strong a stick as the threat of
   removal of the in-addr.arpa delegation.  It should however be
   noted that the whittling of the registration data over time
   also is detrimental for the RIPE community at large, not only
   for the address space holder.

 * What's the carrot?  Only the removal of the stick from above?
   What makes the carrot particularly rotten is several things:

    * The open-ended and unliateral application of "all relevant
      RIPE NCC policies and procedures".  The fear would be "we
      will mire you or your LIR (or both) down in pointless
      address policy work to document ancient history, and have
      the RIPE NCC verify (or deny, as the case may be) all
      assignments done over time" (applicable where address space
      has been used in PA-fashion).
      ...or for PI-style assignments, the assignment itself might
      be challenged.
    * The highly uncertain status of the charging scheme in the
      longer term for the legacy resource holders, where the
      initial proposal to modify today's model had, with no
      discussion, abolished the "age based discount", and where
      current discussion is rampant with "payment per IP address"
      schemes.  The fear is that the RIPE NCC will gouge the
      legacy resource holders either directly or indirectly,
      "motivating" them to hand back the resource.
    * The lack of recognition that these addresses were assigned
      under a different policy.  Anecdotal evidence suggests that
      at one time you would be handed a class-B instead of 4
      class-Cs because there was fear of growth of the routing
      table.  Does the RIPE NCC now want to challenge the
      assignments?

In sum, this makes the RIPE NCC appear more as an extorting bully
rather than an agent who has the accuracy of the address register
as its foremost priority, and this destroys some of the valuable
trust they have built in the community over the years.


Regards,

- Håvard