[ca-tf] Certification Proposal

[Filiz Yilmaz filiz@localhost]

Dear all,

During RIPE 56, Nigel has presented the main points of an Initial  
Certification Policy Proposal.
These points were previously agreed in the TF meeting back on 20th  
March 2008 and with the presentation in RIPE 56, the community  
feedback was asked.
Below, I summarised the feedback received in the meeting:

------
The proposal points were received well by the community in general.

One of the main points that was discussed was to have it for all  
resources immediately or keep the scope as proposed only to the PA  
allocations and holders initially.
Gert Doering suggested that as long as there is a contractual  
relationship in place, there should not be a problem in including all  
resources in the picture.
Hans Peter Holen said it may be an idea to still start with PA  
holders initially and then extend the scope of the policy later when  
in the meanwhile PI proposal can be resolved, after gaining some  
experience from the PA case.
Then Michael Dillon raised some charging and fee issues linked to the  
certificates and questioned the concept from the point of a failure  
in payment causing problems in operations.
This was identified as a procedural problem that can be solved within  
the LIR and the RIPE NCC. Finally it was agreed that this issue  
should be looked at from several angles (including education and  
raising awareness) but it should not stop this proposal to move now.
------

Nigel, you have mentioned that we may look at some rewording to  
include all the resources in the proposal.
Regarding this, evenif there is a generic proposal what covers all  
resources that are bounded by some contractual relationship, we may  
need to phase things out during the real implementation level anyway.
As I understand, there will be some operational difference between:

a) certifying a resource that is held by an LIR who has a direct  
relationship with the RIPE NCC and
b) certifying a resource that is held by an End User who has a direct  
relationship with an LIR instead of the RIPE NCC.
And I hear implementation of cases fitting in "a)" will be earlier  
than implementation of cases fitting in "b)".
Accordingly the policy proposal may want to be in sync with this  
phasing out, which is basically Hans Peter Holen's point above.
I remember this being the idea behind starting with PA holders as we  
discussed during the CA TF meeting back on 20 March too.
So my question now is: how do we proceed?

Please let us know your ideas. Once agreed, I can work on the wording  
and pass a full proposal draft that can be put in PDP as a formal  
proposal.
Kind regards,
Filiz