[address-policy-wg] Re: Revised 2007-01 set back to Review Phase (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)

[David Monosov davidm@localhost]

Dear address-policy-wg,

One concern I have about the current 2007-01 draft is the lack of arguments
opposing the proposal mentioned under the 'Rationale' section of the document.
While many such arguments were raised and discussed extensively on this mailing
list, the draft itself raises only one such argument and proceeds to immediately
dismiss it.

In the current draft, some of the following objections may still be relevant to
varying extent:

- Given the diversity of legal systems the RIPE NCC service region, the success
of contractually binding existing resource holders to a new contract and fee is
uncertain, and might be the beginning of a long and expensive exercise in futility.

- By attempting to levy a new fee on existing end users of directly assigned
resources, RIPE NCC risks creating widespread dissent from these very same end
users which had no voting right on this matter and were likely unaware of the
proceedings of this WG; in the worst case scenario, this might result in end
users utilizing resources regardless of their status in the WHOIS database.

- Previous experience (domain reg. world) suggests that by putting an explicit
price tag on number resources, the "sponsoring LIR" approach in its currently
presented form might result in the rise of "discount LIRs". These LIRs would
process the bulk of the assignments with no accountability to keep costs low,
turning direct assignments into a revenue source and laying waste to many
potential benefits which could result from this proposal.

- The issue of resource reclamation when resources fall into disuse can
potentially be addressed at significantly lower cost and complexity through
technological solutions similar to those employed by e-retail outfits for
customer account management (automated verification of electronic and snail-mail
contacts, IVR verification of phone contacts, regular re-verification).

Given the importance of this proposal, and considering that unfortunately the
members participating in this WG are a small subset of the affected community,
we should ensure the draft provides a balanced overview which includes the
opposing arguments that remain valid for this draft. Such an overview would aid
those who will be voting on this proposal without the benefit of years of
participation and discussion in this WG.

--
Respectfully yours,

David Monosov