On 23/10/2014 21:50, Peter Koch wrote:
In this case, the change appears straightforward even if should vs must was interpreted in a natural language context. On second thought, it remains undefined what the "basic requirements" are (leaving another ambiguity) and it isn't clear whether the list of exemptions is exhaustive. As an example: is the NCC undergoing a regular or case by case audit and who is supposed to execute that? Arbiters are supposed to evaluate requests, but how would the NCC's adherence to the "basic requirements, [...] such as returning unused resources" be supervised? There's no vox populi appeal to the arbiters. But wait, we have a general community involvement in the NCC's operation and my perception was it was considered functioning. So, I'm not really convinced that an s/should/must/ would prevent the NCC from running wild if it wanted to. On the other hand, I might be looking forward to future policy proposals and further should vs must (or similar) discussions except that the PDP rarely provides the right slot for this level of detail. In other words: what's being tried to fixed here is likely to happen again.
Peter, You may have misunderstood this one. The change from "should" to "must" refers explicitly to the 6 points which need to be included in all end-user contracts, namely:
- Notice that the LIR is responsible for liaising with the resource holder to keep registration records up-to-date - Notice that the resource holder is obliged to provide up-to-date registration data to the LIR and that some or all of this registration data will be published in the RIPE WHOIS Database - Notice that none of the provider independent resources may be sub-assigned to a third party - Notice that the resource holder is obliged to pay an annual fee to the LIR for the resources - A clear statement that the resources will return by default to the RIPE NCC if The resource holder cannot be contacted The annual fee to the LIR is not paid - A clear statement that the use of resources is subject to RIPE policies as published on the RIPE web site and which may be amended from time to time
re:
Back to 2014-08: it's either unnecessary or incomplete.
It looks like an eminently reasonable proposal to me. It was never intended that these six points be optional. Nick