-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 21 Oct 2013, at 13:15, Rob Evans wrote:

I (personally, of course) support this proposal.

Thanks, Rob.

In the interests of discussion, though, I'll note that my interpretation of 'Registry Service Elements' in section 1.1 was any single service provided by the RIR, either current or future. However, in the impact analysis the RIPE NCC has interpreted it as only any one of the specific existing services mentioned in 1.1. Does that match with the authors' intention? (If not, does it matter?)

Thanks for asking for clarification. Perhaps because I've been "on the inside" of the process, both as an author and in working out differences of understanding between the authors and the RIPE NCC, I'm not seeing the discrepancy that you describe. I'm glad of the opportunity to explain my interpretation. If this is not consistent with your reading of the texts or if, although convinced, you feel that another reasonable reader might not be, I'll appreciate it if you will make this clear. As the authors intend, "Registry Services" refers to a bundle of services which are to be offered to every legacy resource holder whose relationship with the RIPE NCC is covered by any of sub-sections 2.1 .. 2.5 in section 2. The specification is open-ended so that the bundle may be extended by including one or more additional services from time to time. In the impact analysis, the RIPE NCC proposes a process for doing this. As I see it, this process is consistent with the intent of the proposal. I notice, and didn't before, that in the impact analysis, the NCC uses "Registration Services" instead of "Registry Services". The authors have made a distinction between "Registry Services" as a bundle and the particular set of individual "Registry Service Elements" already provided by the RIPE NCC for any given legacy resource prior to establishing a relationship under which the full bundle could be offered. The set involved may (in principle) vary between one legacy resource and another. In practice, it is unlikely to include only a single service, and also unlikely to include certification. The idea is that any legacy resource holder who wishes to have the full bundle of Registry Services should enter into a relationship with the RIPE NCC, while one to whom certain Registry Service Elements are already provided is protected against withdrawal of those specific service elements but cannot claim to be entitled to others. I hope this helps. Best regards, Niall -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAlJlNWAACgkQeYfkja6ZXtnZgACgitekmgt63fPpE3iezwbtTnBU GJcAmwc1eu0ERKITbbPpNmdHZAS71LGR =DMR/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hi, On Mon, 21 Oct 2013, Rob Evans wrote:

Hi,

...

We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to ncc-services-wg@ripe.net before 8 November 2013.

I (personally, of course) support this proposal.

I'm with Rob. Regards, Jac -- Jac Kloots Network Services SURFnet bv

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013, Rob Evans wrote:

Hi,

...

We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to ncc-services-wg@ripe.net before 8 November 2013.

I (personally, of course) support this proposal.

+1 Cheers, Daniel Stolpe _________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 13 054 556741-1193 103 02 Stockholm