[ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 Discussion Period extended until 21 February 2013 (RIPE NCC Service to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 Discussion Period extended until 21 February 2013 (RIPE NCC Service to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 Discussion Period extended until 21 February 2013 (RIPE NCC Service to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at netability.ie
Wed Feb 6 02:31:28 CET 2013
On 05/02/2013 07:55, Randy Bush wrote: > if they are unresponsive or do not wishfees to engage, i am torn between the > need for the best whois and dns data we can publish and being pretty > cold. honestly, me too - despite all the noise I have made. There are options ranging from the fundamentally destructive (remove the registration data) to free services forever for everything that the RIPE NCC offers. > unfortunately, that is the status quo. and we kind of have a historical > obligation to allow them to ignore the ncc. but perhaps a carrot, as > opposed to a stick, can significantly improve this. Here are some ideas for what could happen if a LRH wasn't engaging (in no particular order): Removal of registration as a short term prospect: no-one is seriously in favour of this. It's unnecessarily destructive and will not entice anyone to engage with the RIPE NCC. Removal of some registration data as a short term prospect: e.g. drop DNS server entries. Again, I think this is unnecessarily aggressive. Time limited amnesty: free registration for X period of time if you engage within Y period. Or some other carrot. Free-for-all-time-for-everyone: as irresponsible as short-term deregistration. Inconvenience: locking of registration data for LRHs who decline to engage. I.e. the data still remains, but you cannot update the details, particularly the nameservers. This is a inconvenience whose severity depends on how necessary good quality IP address services are to the user. Locking could be hard-locking (i.e. autorefusal) or moderated (requests get forwarded to IPRAs). The latter is probably more sensible. Removal of registration as a long term prospect: this will be necessary. There is undoubtedly a pile of ERX address space which is either squatted or abandoned. As a long term objective, I think that there is some duty of stewardship that makes de-registration of data a requirement. Maybe we don't need to deal with it in 2012-07, but it is inevitable on a 20-50 year basis. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 Discussion Period extended until 21 February 2013 (RIPE NCC Service to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 Discussion Period extended until 21 February 2013 (RIPE NCC Service to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]