[ncc-services-wg] Destruction of trust
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Destruction of trust
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Lessons to be learned (was: Destruction of trust)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Rogier Spoor
Rogier.Spoor at SURFnet.nl
Thu Jul 19 17:39:43 CEST 2012
Dear Andrew, Thank you for explaining that apparently there is a communication issue. Sander Steffann raised an important issue in his email: -- But more importantly: RIPE-452 is a result of policy proposal 2007-01, and that proposal explicitly excluded ERX resource holders from being required to sign such a contract. Quoting from 2007-01 (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01/draft): "This proposal does not cover number resources marked in the RIPE database as Early Registration (ERX) or NOT-SET. It also does not cover number resources listed in the RIPE database which were assigned by InterNIC or assigned or allocated by other Regional Internet Registries." -- Unfortunately you haven't responded to this issue yet. Can you please elaborate on this issue? regards, Rogier On 7/19/12 5:03 PM, Andrew de la Haye wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > In Phase 3 of its legacy space project, the RIPE NCC is sending emails > to contact legacy address space holders who are not RIPE NCC members and > who hold a /16 or more. > > In the emails we are sending, all three options, including the option to > register legacy address space with a sponsoring LIR, are presented to > the organisations. However, in the case of contact with three > organisations, an email was mistakenly sent that did not mention the > option to use a sponsoring LIR. > > We regret this mistake and apologise sincerely for the confusion and any > distress this might have caused. > > We are contacting the organisations concerned to ensure that the correct > message is delivered and that they are aware of all options available to > them. > > The RIPE NCC understands that "freezing" registry entries would be > counterproductive and would not help its goal of ensuring registry > correctness. The RIPE NCC has no intention of freezing registry entries > for legacy resource holders. > > Also, the RIPE NCC would like to assure legacy address space holders > that it has no intention of withdrawing reverse DNS services for legacy > address space holders. > > The certification of address space, however, is available only to RIPE > NCC members. > > Thank you for raising the issue and for giving us the opportunity to > clarify these matters. As Marcus has pointed out, the information > concerning the project is available on our legacy webpages: > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/legacy-space > > We will update the documentation concerning the project in the coming > days to accurately reflect the situation. > > Again, we apologise for the error and ask that you contact us at > <legacy at ripe.net> if you have any questions or concerns. Or let us know > via discussion on the list. > > Best regards, > > Andrew de la Haye > Chief Operations Officer > RIPE NCC > > On 7/19/12 4:11 PM, Sander Steffann wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Giving some background information related to address policy: >> >>> 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. >> >> The template is defined in RIPE-452: >> >>> --- >>> The details of any such contracts are outside the scope of this >>> document. However, at the minimum, all contracts should include: >>> >>> • Notice that the LIR is responsible for liaising with the resource >>> holder to keep registration records up-to-date >>> • Notice that the resource holder is obliged to provide up-to-date >>> registration data to the LIR and that some or all of this >>> registration data will be published in the RIPE WHOIS Database >>> • Notice that none of the provider independent resources may be >>> sub-assigned to a third party >>> • Notice that the resource holder is obliged to pay an annual fee to >>> the LIR for the resources >>> • A clear statement that the resources will return by default to the >>> RIPE NCC if >>> • The resource holder cannot be contacted >>> • The annual fee to the LIR is not paid >>> • A clear statement that the use of resources is subject to RIPE >>> policies as published on the RIPE web site and which may be amended >>> from time to time >>> --- >> >> The first two requirements are what is important according to the >> activity plan ("The goal of these activities will be to bring ERX and >> legacy space registration records up to the same standards of accuracy >> as address space distributed by the RIPE NCC since 1992."), and I >> don't think anybody objects to that. >> >> The next point about sub-assignments is a problem. Current legacy >> holders don't have any restrictions on what they can or can not do >> with their address space. This would suddenly limit what legacy >> holders are allowed to do, and possibly even make their existing >> network setup break the contract. >> >> The next two points about paying the bills and the addresses returning >> to the RIPE NCC if the bills are not paid also change the rights of >> the legacy holder. When they don't sign the contract their records in >> the database are frozen and the RIPE NCC "cannot guarantee the >> continuation of reverse DNS". If they sign the contract and then not >> pay the bill they lose all rights to the address space.... >> >> The last point is the most obvious problem for legacy holders. Now the >> legacy holder is subject to no policy at all, and after signing such a >> contract they are suddenly subject to all current and future RIPE >> policies. I fully understand that legacy holders don't want to sign >> such a contract. >> >> But more importantly: RIPE-452 is a result of policy proposal 2007-01, >> and that proposal explicitly excluded ERX resource holders from being >> required to sign such a contract. Quoting from 2007-01 >> (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-01/draft): "This >> proposal does not cover number resources marked in the RIPE database >> as Early Registration (ERX) or NOT-SET. It also does not cover number >> resources listed in the RIPE database which were assigned by InterNIC >> or assigned or allocated by other Regional Internet Registries." >> >> So, following the acceptance of 2007-01 by the community: if the RIPE >> NCC requires legacy holders to sign such a contract (contract with >> sponsoring LIR) they are doing something which directly contradicts an >> accepted RIPE policy... If any legacy holder already signed such a >> contract I strongly feel that they should either be given the option >> to void the contract, or the contract should be declared void >> automatically. >> >> - Sander >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4410 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20120719/1b36b27d/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Destruction of trust
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Lessons to be learned (was: Destruction of trust)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]