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broadening the range of circumstances in which resources can be withdrawn.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"If this policy is adopted, resources can be withdrawn merely for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

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 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

Reply via email to