Request for CLEW Input

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

At 9:52 AM +0100 2/28/01, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
>Dear Howard,
>
>Let me clarify the role and responsibilities of an LIR in the RIPE NCC
>service region.
>
>In order to receive registration services from the RIPE NCC an
>organisation has to become a member. Once a member has received an
>allocation from the RIPE NCC it takes over the role of an LIR. This
>LIR is then responsibe for the address space allodated to it.
>
>Every new LIR gets a so called assignment window (AW) of 0. That means
>that the LIR needs to send all assignemnt requests to the RIPE NCC for
>approval *before* the assignment is made. Once the LIR is more
>familiar with the administrative procedures and more experienced with
>assignment policies, the AW and therefor the LIR's responsibilities
>are increased. All assignment requests that are outside the AW still
>need to be sent to the RIPE NCC for approval.

Understood.  And the point I'm making is that the LIR can bring the 
assignment window rules to the customer, essentially to say "I'm not 
making this requirement up to be difficult."  IMHO, there is a 
problem that there are no clear-cut external rules, in ARIN-land, 
that can be presented to a particularly demanding ISP customer, both 
to justify why the ISP is asking for justification,
and to demonstrate that a competitor that is offering "whatever you 
want" will NOT be able to meet their long-term requirements.

Those of us who understand that ARIN has the same stewardship 
requirement have the benefit of years on mailing lists, of knowing 
RFC 2050 and its ancestry, etc.  I don't pretend to suggest that the 
LIR model is the ideal, but having more externally visible yet 
verifiable controls on ISPs in the ARIN model is a short-term 
approach to the broader problem of customer education.

>
>When the LIR then comes back to the RIPE NCC for additional address
>space, the RIPE NCC reviews the previously allocated address space.
>
>At all times the LIR remains responsible for the address space it got
>allocated by the RIPE NCC also in cases where it makes sub-allocations
>to downstream ISPs.

Precisely.  And the fact that RIPE NCC enforces stewardship 
requirements on LIRs can readily be demonstrated.  It is harder for 
an ISP that receives an allocation from ARIN to demonstrate to its 
customer that it is not a free agent in handing out requests in 
response to customer demand, or that the address pool is simply 
driven by the free market, with address space available to whoever 
wants to pay for it, with or without justification.

>
>The RIRs may have different membership models. However, I agree with
>Richard in that the duties of the members are the same globally,
>i.e. to ensure a responsible stewardship of IP address space.
>
>Kind Regards,
>Mirjam Kuehne
>RIPE NCC
>
>  "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb at clark.net> writes:
>   * In one of my presentations to NANOG last week, the vast majority of
>   * questions related to obtaining and justifying address space. In
>   * particular, North American ISPs complained about how their requests
>   * for their customers to justify assignments and usage were resented,
>   * and how competitors' sales people often used that as a wedge "we'll
>   * give you a /24, or whatever, if you change your service to us.  We
>   * won't hassle you with all the paperwork the incumbent is demanding."
>   *
>   * This seems to be far less of a problem in Europe, and I'm beginning
>   * to think the RIPE NCC model of LIR's (as distinct from generic
>   * members) is part of the solution.  A LIR can present itself as a
>   * steward of address space, much as a CPA or physician is expected to
>   * exercise independent professional integrity.
>   *
>   * Frankly, I'm becoming less and less clear why someone becomes an ARIN
>   * member other than generically supporting part of the Internet
>   * structure. There's much more justification to become a RIPE LIR.
>   *
>   *
>   * >  > Member Services is discussing what kind of increased 
>benefits ARIN can
>   * >>  offer its Members. One consideration is the reinstatement of a
>   * >>  Members-only website for providing news, training and other items of
>   * >>  interest to the Members.
>   * >>
>   * >>  What content would you like to see on this site?  Be specific please. 
>   * Are
>   * >>  there items you would take off the public site and make 
>available for u
>   * se
>   * >>  only by Members? A dynamic website could be useful not only to current
>   * >>  Members, but also for bringing new entities into ARIN's membership.
>   * >>
>   * >>  Please consider this matter and send suggestions to the CLEW list in
>   * >>  preparation for the upcoming Members Meeting.
>   * >>
>   * >Regards,
>   * >
>   * >Barry Skeenes
>   * >Technical Writer
>   * >AMERICAN REGISTRY FOR INTERNET NUMBERS
>   * >bskeenes at arin.net
>   * >703-227-9854
>   *
>   *