On 6 May 2013, at 13:19, Emilio Madaio wrote:
You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-07
and the draft document at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-07/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to before 3 June 2013.
I'm pleased to see the RIPE NCC's Impact Analysis, which seems clear, thorough, cautious, and mostly helpful. I've used the "Executive Summary" section as a framework for my comments, in context below. This approach means that the more detailed text in the Impact Assessment is, for the time being, out of sight for me. Because of this, I may ask for clarification which is already available to me. My comments are made in a personal capacity, without any claim to represent any of the following: my employer, the other co-authors of the proposal, or legacy resource holders.
1. The proposal refers to the terms and conditions under which the Legacy Internet Resources were originally granted. The RIPE NCC will need to be informed as to the content of these original terms and conditions to properly determine their impact.
This need seems to be overstated. Beyond what is necessary to determine whether the party involved is indeed the legitimate holder of the resource in question, what need can the RIPE NCC have for the information mentioned?
2. The RIPE NCC often receives requests from Legacy Resource Holders wanting their resources to be considered as space allocated by the RIPE NCC. If this proposal is accepted, the RIPE NCC will have to decline these requests.
This is information of which I was not previously aware. I appreciate being made aware of this and intend to ensure that it is taken into account during the proposal's next revision cycle.
3. Due diligence checks will be required to verify the legitimacy of Legacy Resource Holders. If the correct documentation cannot be provided, the RIPE NCC will be unable to enter into a contractual relationship with the Legacy Resource Holder.
To the extent the the diligence applied is indeed "due", and conforms with reality rather than with some conventional concept or recipe, this seems reasonable. Due diligence needs to be informed by both Balance of Probability and Balance of Convenience. It seems to me that a test which the RIPE NCC might reasonably use would be whether sufficient trust exists for a good-faith belief in the legitimacy of the claim to hold the resources in question. I expect that the issue here is whether the RIPE NCC can safely offer registration services (possibly including certification) in each specific case.
4. Section 2.1 of the proposal allows Legacy Internet Resources to be covered by the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement (SSA). Modifications to the SSA will require approval by the General Meeting (GM).
The GM has the necessary power. I expect that it will be for a member with some interest in legacy resources to bring forward a proposal that the GM exercise this power.
5. Section 2.4 of the proposal allows the Legacy Resource Holder to engage directly with the RIPE NCC through a special contract if they cannot find a sponsoring LIR. The RIPE NCC cannot think of any circumstances where this might be the case. Also, the creation of such a special class of contract would require approval by the GM.
My remark to point 4 applies also to point 5.
6. Similarly, section 2.5 allows the Legacy Resource Holder to conclude no contact due to special enduring circumstances. The RIPE NCC cannot think of what these circumstances might be, and some Registration Services cannot be performed without a contract in place. Additionally, the RIPE NCC will be unable to enforce these resource holders to maintain accurate data in the registry.
[s/contact/contract/] The proposal mentions "special enduring or temporary circumstances" and also that these be "recognised by the RIPE NCC as being outside the resource holder's control". As I understand it, the intent here is fourfold: - that the RIPE NCC have the freedom to deal appropriately with unforeseen adverse circumstances on a case-by-case basis; - that awareness of this freedom be available to every reader of the policy; - that the RIPE NCC is protected from vexatious or mischievous invocation of this section by the requirement for recognition by the RIPE NCC of the nature of the circumstances; and - that the resource holder has a remedy against unreasonable refusal of this recognition by recourse to the arbitration procedure. It is of the nature of unforeseen circumstances that it may be difficult to think in advance of what they might be. It is not possible, and therefore not necessary, either for the proposers or for the RIPE NCC to itemize in a (final or proposed) policy an exhaustive list of such circumstances. It will be useful to have a list of the Registration Services for which a contract is required.
7. In cases where the Legacy Resource Holder is unknown or unresponsive, the proposal allows for the RIPE NCC to update entries in the RIPE Database but does not specify the scope of these updates.
The fact that a resource holder is unknown or unresponsive should not be an obstacle to the RIPE NCC's exercise of its responsibility for the data it holds. Circumstances may arise in which there is a compelling reason for the RIPE NCC to make an update. The RIPE NCC is empowered and trusted to act responsibly.
8. The provision of some RIPE NCC services is dependent on whether the resources are PA or PI. The RIPE NCC will require clear guidelines on the terms under which Legacy Internet Resources would be offered these services.
Only Registration Services are within scope for this proposal. Legacy resources are neither PA nor PI, but LEGACY, and need to be supported by Registration Services. If the policy proposal is unclear, it will be helpful to have this indicated, either by reference to more detailed text in the current Impact Assessment, or by further clarification. Otherwise, the preparation of operational guidelines consistent with RIPE policy as developed from time to time, seems to me to be the responsibility of the RIPE NCC, subject to due oversight and confirmation from the community.
9. Currently arbitration does not apply to Legacy Internet Resources. Amendments to the arbitration procedure are subject to approval by the GM.
Please see my comment to point 4.
10. If the proposal is accepted, the RIPE NCC will have to contact Legacy Resource Holders that have their resources registered under the umbrella of an LIR and offer them the contractual options of the accepted proposal. The RIPE NCC will consider any requests for this since 1992 as having never been submitted.
If such a LIR is acting as an ad-hoc registration intermediary, the situation may be seen as sufficiently irregular as to require attention whether or not the proposal is accepted. Otherwise, a variation to a Sponsoring-LIR agreement will be needed, which is the responsibility of each LIR involved. I'ld like to have further explanation of the last sentence, referring to 1993, as I don't understand it.
11. If the community decides that this proposal should allow for the certification of Legacy Internet Resources, the RIPE NCC will need to create a certification system specific to these resources.
Probably. I understand that another current proposal aims to allow certification of PI resources. It may be opportune to create a multivalent certification system supporting different kinds of resources.
12. The RIPE NCC is seeking guidance from the community on who should be considered the legitimate holder of Legacy Internet Resources that have been distributed through several layers of hierarchy.
This is a significant problem, which arises whether or not the current policy proposal is accepted. I'm not sure what specific impact this policy proposal has on the problem. I can see that it changes the context, but neither that it makes the problem either more or less intractable nor that it affects the nature of the work to be done.
13. RIPE Database objects referring to Legacy Internet Resources currently have several different "status:" attribute values. The RIPE NCC proposes changing these to 'LEGACY'.
This seems reasonable.
14. The RIPE NCC also proposes introducing a mandatory "status:" attribute for all AUT-NUM objects which would take the value 'LEGACY' for all legacy AS numbers. For all other AS numbers the values would either be set to 'ASSIGNED' (assigned by the RIPE NCC) or 'OTHER' (assigned by other RIRs).
This also seems reasonable. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly