[anti-abuse-wg] Reclamation/current policy (was: Re: Allocation of number resources)

Dear colleagues,

We would like to address the matter raised about the "Closure of Member
and Deregistration of Internet Number Resources" procedural document
(ripe-578), and in particular the following sections:

- B.1.1.b Invalidity of original allocation/assignment criteria Internet
number resources are allocated/assigned based on a specific need. When
the original technical requirements or the business purpose for the use
of the Internet number resources change, the allocation/ assignment
becomes invalid. If the RIPE NCC notices any change in the original
technical criteria or the original business purposes for using the
Internet number resources, the RIPE NCC is authorised to deregister the
relevant Internet number resources.

- B.1.1.e Fraudulent request
If a Member has submitted a fraudulent request for an allocation or an
Independent resource (for example, by providing incorrect purpose/need
or falsified information about the network, etc.), the RIPE NCC will
deregister the relevant records.

In section B.1.1.b "the RIPE NCC is authorised to deregister the
relevant Internet number resources" whereas in section B.1.1.e "the RIPE
NCC will deregister the relevant records".

There is indeed a difference in the way we handle these two cases.

Section B.1.1.b describes two cases:
a) Assignments: Assignments are justified by a specific technical need.
If the RIPE NCC finds that the original assignment criteria are no
longer valid, we are authorised to deregister the assignment. In most
cases when the original criteria are not longer valid, however, the
reason is that the business of the end user has changed, and while the
original criteria are no longer valid, there is still a valid technical
need for address space. In such cases, we normally evaluate the "new"
justification and update our records because deregistering one
assignment while at the same time registering a new one is an
unnecessary bureaucratic exercise.

b) Allocations: Allocations never have a specific technical need as
justification. An allocation is a block that is reserved for an LIR to
make assignments out of. As such, the justification for an allocation is
the business the LIR operates, which requires them to make assignments.
Only when an LIR ceases to operate the business that requires it to make
assignments would the allocation become invalid.

But if the allocation is based on a fraudulent request (section
B.1.1.e), this is clearly an offense. The RIPE NCC will certainly
deregister the resources if there is evidence that the request  was
based on falsified information.

Kind regards,
Athina Fragkouli
RIPE NCC



> *From: *"Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com
> <mailto:rfg at tristatelogic.com>>
> *Subject: **[anti-abuse-wg] Reclamation/current policy (was: Re:
> Allocation of number resources)*
> *Date: *February 9, 2013 9:33:24 PM GMT+01:00
> *To: *anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net <mailto:anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
>
>
> In message <5116686A.8020208 at heanet.ie>,
> Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie <mailto:brian.nisbet at heanet.ie>>
> wrote:
>
>> Ronald F. Guilmette wrote, On 08/02/2013 20:07:
>>>
>>> It would appear that a newer revision of this document exists:
>>>
>>> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-541
>>
>> Sorry, my mistake, I picked the wrong version. 541 has also been updated:
>>
>> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-578
>>
>> Can you just check your questions still apply to this version?
>
> Yes, they still do apply.
>
> I would still like to know why Section B.1.b apparently says that RIPE
> NCC _might_ reclaim the improperly allocated resources whereas Section
> B.1.e says quite clearly that RIPE NCC "will" reclaim the resources.
>
> Again, my question is:  Was this difference in wording intentional and
> deliberate?  Or was it inadvertant and unintended?
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
>