Hello Axel, I think you and/or the NCC board has misinterpreted the proposal.
Preferred model
The Executive Board anticipates that this proposal will introduce a dual model whereby an End User can chose to have *either* a contract with a "sponsoring Local Internet Registry (LIR)" or directly with the RIPE NCC.
This is correct, however;
Direct contracts with the RIPE NCC
The Executive Board also understands that the proposal introduces the option for those End Users who cannot form a contract with a "Sponsoring LIR" to form a contract directly with the RIPE NCC. In this case the End User will be required to set up an LIR and become a RIPE NCC member.
This is not. It is intended that there will be a new kind of contract between the RIPE NCC and the End User. It is specifically not intended to be an LIR contract. Nick Hilliard proposed the following in his RIPE 55 presentation: End-user can deal with RIPE NCC directly - envisage a web based auto-signup procedure - fully automated, no human interaction - registration expires unless bills are paid He also included a transfer method in his presentation: Careful transfer method required, to deal with: - friendly transfer from LIR to LIR - transfer from hostile LIR at end-users’request - transfer from LIR to RIPE NCC - transfer from RIPE NCC to LIR As you can see, this does not fit with your / the boards interpretation of the policy. Therefore the following part of your message does not seem to apply anymore:
After extensive discussion, the RIPE NCC Executive Board does not believe that the addition of a draft contract to proposal 2007-01 is necessary.
I would like to ask the RIPE NCC Executive Board to make a draft contract which conforms to the intentions of policy proposal 2007-01. Thank you, Sander Steffann Address Policy WG co-chair