On 12/03/2018 12:57, Brian Nisbet wrote: > Finally we need to address the objections around the possible > implications of organisations *not* following this policy. It is > clear that 2017-02 does not attempt to introduce any additional > processes nor change how the NCC would act in cases where policies > are not followed.
I think that's slightly misleading. If we have an existing rule that non-compliance with RIPE policies can result in withdrawal of resources, then while it is strictly that "this does not change how the NCC would act in cases where policies are not followed", by adding a new policy that must be followed we're still broadening the range of circumstances in which resources can be withdrawn. So I think it is a legitimate objection to this policy proposal to say "If this policy is adopted, resources can be withdrawn merely for failure to maintain this field, and I think that's a disproportionate outcome". I think it's also worth noting that the provision of the rules that non-compliance leads to withdrawal of resources is not something of long standing, proven appropriate by the passage of time: it was only brought in at the GM at the end of last year. Before then, while we did have another version of that rule, it wouldn't have interacted with this policy in the same way. So it is appropriate to be careful about not creating unforeseen interactions. Personally, I do think that it would be disproportionate. If I were convinced compliance with this policy would have a significant impact on the problem, it would be a more difficult call; as it is, the risk/reward balance seems quite unfavourable. Malcolm. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA