On 19 Oct 2026, at 13:00, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
First, many thanks to Angela for getting the proposal published.
With the draft now available to the working group, I would like to hear your feedback.
A +1 to the proposal overall. Specific comments: The new language in the abstract limits the applicability of the policy to “Local Internet Registries (LIRs) within the RIPE NCC service region” but there are LIRs based outside of the region, for instance in Australia. It would be good to use language that makes it clear that the policy applies to all LIRs and not just those in this part of the world. In section 10, “the LIR cannot be contacted by the RIPE NCC for a significant period of time” is a bit vague. Does it mean that they can’t be contacted or that they do not respond? And how long is a significant period of time? It would be good to make this clearer as closing an LIR is such a significant action. Also in section 10, “The RIPE NCC takes on responsibility for address space held by closing LIRs.” This could be read as implying that the RIPE NCC will provide some kind of continuity of service for entities that contracted with the closed LIR. It could also be read as implying some kind of bulk transfer akin to what ICANN does with domain names (see: https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/accredited-registrars/resources/...). While domains and IP addresses aren’t equivalent, that doesn’t mean that an upset end user wouldn’t read this phrase that way, gaining false hope. It would be great if this phrasing could be clarified, too. Thanks, Leo