On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 02:33:08PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
To recap: my main point of contention with this proposal is that it creates a perception of responsibility of the sponsoring LIR for the actions of the end user - which does not exist beyond keeping the ripedb updated. Thus it creates an attack surface for those who see it as their duty to keep the internet free of <insert agenda here>. Which will make it hard to impossible for a controversial or otherwise inconvenient independent resource holder (or applicant) to find or keep a sponsoring LIR. Impact Statement: "During implementation of this policy, the RIPE NCC will contact those organisations acting as sponsoring LIRs to notify them of this change and allow them time to react appropriately, by reviewing their sponsoring LIR agreements and terminating any they do not want to be associated with (or even all of them)." The wording is ambiguous and may refer to resources "brought in" under 2007-01/Phase III, but it can be read as if a sponsoring LIR will get an opportunity to break a sponsorship contract with an inconvenient end-user, thus orphaning them before an attack even happens. I would ask the NCC to please clarify the intention of this sentence, and note that https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/independent-resources/... does specify a notice period of 3 months for termination of the IR contract, otherwise we're looking at a case of Breach of Contract. For the record and the avoidance of doubt: I still oppose this proposal for the above mentioned reason. Kind Regards, Sascha Luck
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to ncc-services-wg@ripe.net before 20 May 2013.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC