[address-policy-wg] 2014-08 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region")
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-08 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in âContractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Regionâ)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-07, was [Re: 2014-08 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region")]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Thu Oct 23 23:30:27 CEST 2014
On 23/10/2014 21:50, Peter Koch wrote: > In this case, the change appears straightforward even if should vs must was > interpreted in a natural language context. On second thought, it remains > undefined what the "basic requirements" are (leaving another ambiguity) > and it isn't clear whether the list of exemptions is exhaustive. As an > example: is the NCC undergoing a regular or case by case audit and > who is supposed to execute that? Arbiters are supposed to evaluate > requests, but how would the NCC's adherence to the "basic requirements, [...] > such as returning unused resources" be supervised? There's no vox populi > appeal to the arbiters. > But wait, we have a general community involvement in the NCC's operation > and my perception was it was considered functioning. So, I'm not > really convinced that an s/should/must/ would prevent the NCC from running wild > if it wanted to. On the other hand, I might be looking forward to > future policy proposals and further should vs must (or similar) discussions > except that the PDP rarely provides the right slot for this level of detail. > In other words: what's being tried to fixed here is likely to happen again. Peter, You may have misunderstood this one. The change from "should" to "must" refers explicitly to the 6 points which need to be included in all end-user contracts, namely: > - 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 re: > Back to 2014-08: it's either unnecessary or incomplete. It looks like an eminently reasonable proposal to me. It was never intended that these six points be optional. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-08 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in âContractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Regionâ)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-07, was [Re: 2014-08 New Policy Proposal (Language Clarification in "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region")]
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]