[address-policy-wg] 2007-01 End User Relationships

[<michael.dillon@localhost]

I strongly support proposal 2007-01 which states this on the web page:

-----------
This proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User
and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC must be established before the End
User receives Internet number resources (Autonomous System (AS) Number,
Provider Independent (PI) IPv4 and IPv6, Internet Exchange Point (IXP)
and anycasting assignments) directly from the RIPE NCC. It also states
that the text in the policy should mention more explicitly that PI
assignments can not be sub-assigned. 
------------

I've been personally stuck in the middle of PI applications by end users
and I don't believe that we, as an LIR, add any value to the process. In
some cases, I believe we just create problems because we end up passing
on messages between RIPE and the End User instead of allowing the two
parties to communicate directly. After all, PI means Provider
Independent, and since LIRs are providers, shouldn't the End User be
independent of us when they apply for their addresses?

Also, I have had experience on several occasions, of helping End Users
in the ARIN region apply for PI allocations there. My role was to
advise, explain, educate and to review their applications before they
submitted them to ARIN. Every one of these End Users were eventually
successful in their application, in fact one of them got it approved the
same day they applied. The reason I am telling you this is to point out,
that giving End Users a direct relationship with RIPE, does not mean
that the LIRs are blocked from the whole process. If the End User is a
customer, we can still help them by advising, explaining, educating and
reviewing the applications before they go to RIPE.

--Michael Dillon