Hi all, Whilst it is good to see discussion happening on the working group list, this is just a gentle reminder that this working group is for discussion on the services offered by the RIPE NCC. Comments about the proposed aspects of a future charging scheme should take place on <members-discuss@ripe.net>. Thanks! Rob (On behalf of the NCC Services WG co-chairs.)
Hi Rob, Is this WG good for the discussion of possible reversion of the effect of 2007-01? Thank you. -- Best regards, Sergey
On 3/10/2026, at 20:32, Rob Evans <rhe@nosc.ja.net> wrote:
Hi all,
Whilst it is good to see discussion happening on the working group list, this is just a gentle reminder that this working group is for discussion on the services offered by the RIPE NCC. Comments about the proposed aspects of a future charging scheme should take place on <members-discuss@ripe.net>.
Thanks!
Rob (On behalf of the NCC Services WG co-chairs.)
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/ncc-services-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi, On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 10:27:11PM +0530, Sergey Myasoedov via ncc-services-wg wrote:
Is this WG good for the discussion of possible reversion of the effect of 2007-01?
2007-01 came out of the address policy WG, and I'm curious what you mean with "reversion of the *effects*" - 2007-01 introduced contractual requirements on independent resource holders (non-LIR resource holders), and these contracts are now in place, so "reversion of the effect" would be like "burn all contract paperworks"? Gert Doering -- somewhat involved in 2007-01 -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: Dr. Frank Thiäner D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Gert, Thank you for such a throwback :)
2007-01 came out of the address policy WG, and I'm curious what you mean with "reversion of the *effects*" - 2007-01 introduced contractual requirements on independent resource holders (non-LIR resource holders), and these contracts are now in place, so "reversion of the effect" would be like "burn all contract paperworks"?
2007-01 had the goal of enforcing contractual requirements for every PI holder. Now we have this rule in action for 15 years, and what do we get as a result? 20.000 contracts have been reviewed by the RIPE NCC? Just to be formally compliant? Yes, we do have them. Does this mean we do have the corresponding database data we may rely on? -- Best regards, Sergey
On 3/11/2026, at 2:42, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 10:27:11PM +0530, Sergey Myasoedov via ncc-services-wg wrote:
Is this WG good for the discussion of possible reversion of the effect of 2007-01?
2007-01 came out of the address policy WG, and I'm curious what you mean with "reversion of the *effects*" - 2007-01 introduced contractual requirements on independent resource holders (non-LIR resource holders), and these contracts are now in place, so "reversion of the effect" would be like "burn all contract paperworks"?
Gert Doering -- somewhat involved in 2007-01 -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Karin Schuler, Sebastian Cler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: Dr. Frank Thiäner D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi Sergey,
Is this WG good for the discussion of possible reversion of the effect of 2007-01?
As Gert has mentioned, 2007-01 was discussed in the Address Policy Working Group, so at a first glance, changes to that should follow the same route. However, it’s not clear what the changes in policy would be to reverse the effect? Cancel all contractual arrangements? Not require them to be renewed? Would PI holders still be entitled to services such as RPKI? Legacy holders? If you could suggest some, we can work with the PDO and the chairs of other working groups to find the most appropriate venue. From your follow-up message, are you suggesting that the implementation of 2007-01 has not led to an increase in database accuracy? Or something else? Cheers, Rob
Hi Rob, Sponsoring contracts create an excessive workload for the RIPE NCC, and removing this requirement would have a positive effect. Changes to registration data can still be made by the NCC, while connected LIRs will be responsible for ensuring database accuracy. If there is no direct PI registration with the RIPE NCC, then we don't need the contracts. This is the point. -- Best, Sergey
On 3/11/2026, at 16:32, Rob Evans <rhe@nosc.ja.net> wrote:
Hi Sergey,
Is this WG good for the discussion of possible reversion of the effect of 2007-01?
As Gert has mentioned, 2007-01 was discussed in the Address Policy Working Group, so at a first glance, changes to that should follow the same route. However, it’s not clear what the changes in policy would be to reverse the effect? Cancel all contractual arrangements? Not require them to be renewed? Would PI holders still be entitled to services such as RPKI? Legacy holders? If you could suggest some, we can work with the PDO and the chairs of other working groups to find the most appropriate venue.
From your follow-up message, are you suggesting that the implementation of 2007-01 has not led to an increase in database accuracy? Or something else?
Cheers, Rob
participants (3)
-
Gert Doering -
Rob Evans -
Sergey Myasoedov