[ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)

Hi WG,

Clarifying the "legal" status of the legacy holders without taking away
any of their pre-existing rights is an improvement over the current
undefined and ad-hoc practices, and I think it will likely cause a
positive incentive for these organisations to actively participate in
the community and to keep their registry entries accurate, which is a
benefit not only to the legacy holders themselves and the RIPE NCC and
its membership, but the entire internet and routing communities as a whole.

I believe 2012-07 accomplishes the above while striking a decent balance
between the interests of all involved parties.

That said, I do not see the purpose of section 2.4 «Option to engage
directly with the RIPE NCC». Section 2.2 «Option to become a RIPE NCC
member» seems to me to accomplish the same thing, only without requiring
a new contract class to be established. Having only two options (full
member, or registered via a sponsoring LIR) would maintain consistency
with current operational practices regarding PI assignments, and would
reduce the operational impact of this policy as existing business
structures and practices already instated for PI holders could be
re-used for legacy holders. For this reason I will likely vote against
the creation of such a special contract option at the AGM.

Nor do I see the purpose of section 2.5 «When there are obstacles for
2.1/2.2/2.3/2.4», as section 2.6 «No relationship» seems to cover this
case. Perhaps it's only my imagination being limited, but the only
likely "obstacle" I can envision here is that the resource holder cannot
produce adequate proof of ownership, and in that case section 2.6 ("the
status quo, but no more") seems like the the most reasonable way to
proceed. I'd certainly be opposed to the RIPE NCC unilaterally having to
"confirm" such unproved ownership, e.g., by providing certification
services, in the same way as if ownership was properly proven according
to the provisions in sections 2.1 through 2.4. That said, the Impact
Analysis seems to me to say that section 2.5 would be implemented in
pretty much the same way as section 2.6, so I suppose there is no real
cause for concern here even though the policy text itself makes me
somewhat uneasy.

So in summary, while I would have preferred to see sections 2.4 and 2.5
be removed completely, I consider the proposal as a whole to provide a
net benefit. Therefore: Support.

Tore
(a RIPE NCC member who holds no legacy resources)