[ncc-services-wg] Destruction of trust

> Note that it is not mandatory to register legacy address
> space. It's completely optional for legacy address space holders to:
>
> a. Become a RIPE NCC member; or
> b. Register their resources with a sponsoring LIR; or
> c. Remain as they are
>
> While the option for a legacy address space holder to become a
> member of the RIPE NCC is available, the RIPE NCC actively
> encourages legacy address space holders to register their
> address space with a sponsoring LIR.

You know that, and I do too, but I suspect that most legacy holders,
especially those who are not LIRs already, don't.  The letter the
RIPE NCC is currently sending as the first contact with the legacy
space holders only explicitly mentions options a) and c) above.

In reality, if some legacy space is in use, option c) above isn't an
option, given the very thinly veiled threat of removal of the
in-addr.arpa DNS delegation.  So for these holders, it means there
is a certain element of coercion involved pushing towards either
option a) or b) above.

If I've understood correctly, both option a) and b) above involve in
effect abolishment of historical grants and contractual submission
to all current and future RIR address policies and procedures which
are deemed to be relevant, with, I'm sure, the RIPE NCC interpreting
what is relevant.  No grandfather clauses, acknowledgement of
historical rights or explicit limitations anywhere in sight, and no
option to amend the template contract imposed by the RIPE NCC.
Therefore, this seems to be a unilateral land grab in the policy
area by the RIPE NCC.  I'm surprised noone appears to see the
inherent danger in such an action.

> To give you some information on the work carried out by the RIPE NCC
> so far, the Registration Services Department has contacted 145
> existing LIRs who hold legacy resources. The responses from those
> LIRs can be broken down as follows:
> 
> - 63 LIRs added the address space under their LIR's registration
> - 24 LIRs said that they were not interested because of the lack of
>   RIPE Policies
> - 2 returned unused legacy address space
> - 56 did not reply to the original email or reminder emails
>
> A total of 8,513,280 IP addresses were added to the LIRs' registration
> during this phase of the project.

This shows that the process of establishing a fait accompli is
progressing.

Of course many will have budged under the pressure imposed by the
RIPE NCC.  I'm somewhat encouraged that despite this, quite a few
LIRs appear to in effect have said "develop a public policy first,
and we'll (re-)consider it".

Regards,

- Håvard