[ncc-services-wg] comments on proposal 2012-07

Hi Nick,

We've asked the RIPE NCC for some clarity on your comments regarding section 3.0 in the policy proposal, please see Athina's reply below:

===
There are two elements we would like to clarify with this regards:

- Who defines the services provided by the RIPE NCC to legacy resource
holders
- The inclusion of possible amendments to the NCC services provided to
legacy resources as a term of the contract.

1. Who defines the services provided by the RIPE NCC to legacy resource
holders

The policy proposal (section 1.1) outlines the registration services
generally provided by the RIPE NCC:
"Registration Services - Services provided by the RIPE NCC in its
capacity as a Regional Internet Registry, including the following and
such additional services as may be identified from time to time as
registry services:
- Maintenance of data relating to Internet Resources by the NCC in their
Internet Resource registry;
- Access to these data for update by or on behalf of the respective holder;
- Public availability of registration data;
- Certification of these data; and
- Delegation of reverse DNS to the registered DNS servers."

Furthermore in section 4.0 the proposal clarifies the services available
to legacy holders, depending on the type of contractual relationship a
legacy holder wants to have with the RIPE NCC.

About future RIPE NCC services, whether they will be considered as
Registration services available to legacy resources, we believe that
this should be a decision to be made not just by the RIPE community but
by the RIPE NCC membership as well, because the membership is the one
deciding on the RIPE NCC services in general. This view is also
reflected in the RIPE NCC’s impact analysis (section A):

“This definition gives a non-exclusive list of services. Other services,
both current and future, may also be considered Registration Services.
This proposal does not specify the process according to which a service
(other than those listed) is identified as Registration Services.
Therefore, the RIPE NCC will make this decision after consultation with
the membership and RIPE Community.”


2. The inclusion of possible amendments to the NCC services provided to
legacy resources as a term of the contract.

Section 3.0 of the proposal requires that the contractual agreement
includes:
- “the obligation for both parties to comply with this policy and with
other RIPE policies which relate to Legacy Internet Resources.”
- "specification of the service or services offered in respect of each
resource identified".

Accordingly:
- legacy holders will have to agree that they comply with the RIPE
policies anyway
- the proposal requires that each legacy holder specifies the services
they want for their resources. So not every registration services
available to legacy resources will be automatically included to their
contract unless they specifically ask for it.

Therefore we believe that an addition of a term that includes
automatically new services to the contract with legacy holders would
contradict the other term of the proposal (about the specification of
the services in respect of each resource identified).
===

I hope this addresses the concerns you raised below.

Best regards,

Bijal


On 15 Dec 2013, at 14:31, Nick Hilliard <nick at netability.ie> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> It looks like there are only a couple of days before the end of last call
> on this proposal.  There are still several issues which I've brought up
> throughout the proposal which haven't been answered, even though some of
> them have been brought up several times on the mailing list.
> 
> I.e. none of them are new, but none of them has been dealt with either.
> 
> Excluding my concerns with section 2.6 where I respect the community
> consensus but still strongly disagree with, these issues include from my
> email of 2013-11-01:
> 
>> Serious issues:
>> Section 3.0 needs to include a term in the contract to state that the
>> services provided by the RIPE NCC to the legacy resource holder are defined
>> by RIPE community policy and may be amended from time to time, according to
>> ripe community policy.
> [...]
>> Section 2.4 is redundant.  We have a well established precedent under the
>> terms of 2007-01 for engaging with sponsoring LIRs and this seems to work
>> well in practice.  Creating this policy option merely adds cost to the RIPE
>> NCC's bottom line for no gain.
>> 
>> Nits:
>> 
>> Section 3.0: "a statement that the RIPE NCC is not entitled to deregister
>> the resources for whatever purpose unless so instructed by the resource
>> holder".  This statement is advisory only and it needs to be made clear
>> that the sponsoring LIR does not have power to make a legally binding
>> statement of this form.  This actually applies to all four statements in
>> section 3.0.
> 
> Nick
> 
>