[ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources Moved to Last Call

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:51:21PM +0200, Daniel Suchy wrote:
>For PA space, I'm able to locate LIR responsible for each particular
>assignment almost without exception. I just like similar option for PI
>addresses. This information is hidden.

That is exactly the nub of the argument. There IS NO responsibility of a
LIR for a PI assignment, this responsibility lies with the resource
holder. The only "responsibility" the sponsoring LIR has is to forward 
information to the NCC, the LIR does not even have the discretion to
approve or deny this assignment itself.
This proposal tries to establish a responsibility on the part of the
sponsoring LIR for the behaviour of the resource holder. The NCC has,
cynically, acknowledged this fact by designing an implementation
procedure whereby each sponsoring LIR is asked whether they don't want
to get rid of inconvenient PI contracts altogether. 

>PI address space wasn't designed for this kind of "privacy". Why should
>be there any difference between end-user of PA and end-user of PI
>address in terms of responsible LIR publication? You didn't provided
>clear ansver for that.

For the fundamental difference between PI and PA, see above. If this
difference is not wanted, please support 2013-06.

I have one more thing to say to the RIPE community: The outcome of the
"PDP" seems to have, lately, mostly depended on *who* floated a
proposal, *who* objected and *who* yelled the loudest. Not even to
mention ad hominem attacks from "terrorist" to "crazy". If you keep
insisting on making this PDP a vehicle for giving the ideas of a small
clique a veneer of legitimacy, the internet community *will route
around you*. The RIR system will become irrelevant.

That's all folks,
Sascha Luck

PS: I'm still opposed to this proposal, in case it wasn't clear enough.
Not that it matters.