Hi Nick,
It provides for several options relating to the engagement between the legacy holders and RIPE, in recognition of the wide range of organisations who are legacy holders.
It also provides multiple options for LRHs to completely ignore the RIPE NCC forever. I don't believe that this constitutes good stewardship of resource registration on the part of the RIPE NCC.
I think the point here is that the RIPE NCC wasn't involved in the original resource registration in the first place. I think it's (legally?) not possible to force legacy holders to work with the RIPE NCC because they got their address space before the RIPE NCC even existed and/or started to register resources with no strings attached, and I don't think you can expect the RIPE NCC to maintain good stewardship for resources that they don't have strings on... (probably not good English, but I hope you understand what I mean ;-) This proposal tries to bring the legacy resource holders and the RIPE NCC together under mutually acceptable conditions to create a situation of good stewardship as far as possible. It won't be perfect. Address space got given away without any conditions attached at the beginning of the internet, and now we have to deal with that. Thanks, Sander