Randy Bush wrote: [...]
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.
unfortunately, that is the status quo. and we kind of have a historical obligation to allow them to ignore the ncc. but perhaps a carrot, as opposed to a stick, can significantly improve this.
Indeed. Coming back after stating my general support yesterday, to one of the individual issues that may benefit from changes: I don't remember who already pointed fingers at the ROA service (thanks!), but we - eventually - may have a pretty convincing carrot by offering the "Certification of these data;" (which I read as being ROA and future friends) only to LHRs that have established a formal relationship and are paying for the service according to 2.1 ... 2.4. Certification is a service that has been developed recently by the RIRs, so IMO there is no legacy "right" here. This would apply for the cases described in 2.5 and certainly 2.6. [...]
---
i think sander said it well:
+1 Wilfried
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.
suggestions on how to better achieve these goals would be greatly appreciated of course.
randy