On 27 Mar 2013, at 12:28, Wilfried Woeber wrote:

In this context, may I ask for clarification of intent and/or word-smithing, by the authors or the NCC, regarding the phrase in 2.6:

Although I attempted to clarify the intent in a message archived here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2013-February/002009.... , you and almost everyone on either of the mailing lists receiving this can't yet have seen how we tried to express this when revising the proposal for v3. Here's what's in my diff-minus-u-style change-tracking copy of the current text of the proposal: 2.6 No relationship ------------------- In cases where the current holder of Legacy Internet Resources cannot be contacted, does not reply to contact from the RIPE NCC or is unknown, there is no formal relationship between the holder and the RIPE NCC. - In such a case, the RIPE NCC will continue to provide those registry - services which are already being provided in respect of the Legacy - Internet Resource or Resources involved, and may update the related - entries in the RIPE Database from time to time to correspond to - current actual situation. + In such a case, the RIPE NCC + - will continue to provide any registry service element already + provided in support of each Legacy Internet Resource involved; + - will have no obligation to begin to provide any registry service + element not already provided in support of a particular Legacy + Internet Resource, even in case the service element is provided in + support of any other Legacy Internet Resource held by the same or + another Resource Holder; + - and may update the related entries in the RIPE Database from time + to time to correspond to the current actual situation. Less formally, this is intended to mean that the NCC should - not curtail service; - not be obliged to implement any missing service element; and - have scope to act to improve the accuracy of the data held. I hope this helps, and encourage you to ask if it doesn't help enough. Best regards, /Niall