Title: Principles for Number Resource Registration Policies

Authors: R. Blokzijl, D. Karrenberg

Version: 1.0
Date: 5 March 2010

1. Scope of this document. 
           
This discussion document sets out the principles for IPv4 address registration
after the unallocated pool of addresses has run out.  The purpose of this document
is to expose the thinking of the authors, and encourage a discussion in
the community. 

This is not a policy proposal.  Once there is community consensus about
these principles, the authors intend to instigate the development of
appropriate policies. 


2. History

From the very first RIPE meeting in 1989 the need for a registry has
been identified.  In the early years of RIPE this consisted of
documenting the use of IPv4 address space in the RIPE region on a
voluntary basis.  The actual address space was not distributed by RIPE. 

From August 1992 the new RIPE NCC started distributing address space in
the RIPE region.  These allocations were done following rules agreed
upon by the RIPE community.  Over the years these rules - or as we now
call them: policies - have evolved based on the principle of
distributing unallocated resources.  While the vast majority of the
policies deal with distribution of address space, some of them deal with
registration. 

Allocations made by the RIPE NCC have always been documented in the
registry by the RIPE NCC and the local registries. 

In the foreseeable future there will be no more unallocated address
space.  However, the authors believe that the need for an accurate
registry will remain. 


3. The need for new registration policies

Current registration policies are part of much wider distribution
policies.  In the near future the unallocated pool will have run out. 
Therefore the whole set of distribution policies will become historic. 
However, the registry will still remain, and the authors expect that the
community will still find it useful. 

There will be a continued need for registration policies, that reflect
the new situation. 


4. Purpose of the registry

At the root of any policy about the resource registry lies the purpose
of the registry.  Therefore we briefly enumerate the diverse purposes of
the RIPE registry. 

The RIPE NCC address registry serves two purposes:

	1. a comprehensive public recording of the address space 
           for which the RIPE NCC has administrative responsibility. 
           This concerns both address space allocated by the RIPE NCC, 
           and address space allocated by others and transferred to 
           the administrative responsibility of the RIPE NCC.

	2. a comprehensive public recording of the current holders 
           of the address space.

Transparency and accountability about the administration of Internet
Number Resources has always been very important.  Publication of the
registry is an essential element of this transparency and
accountability. 
        
The registry plays an important part in the operational coordination
between Internet operators. 
     
Other applications of the registry are numerous and are not defined by
the RIPE NCC. 


5. Properties of the registry

In order to serve its purpose, the registry must have the following
properties:

	- comprehensive:   the registry has to cover all address space 
                           the RIPE NCC is responsible for, 
                           without exceptions.

	- current:         the registry must be kept up to date.

	- correct:	   the registry must document the actual use 
                           of the address space.


6. Incentives and disincentives

The registry can only serve its purpose with active participation of the
registrants.  Any policy must consider incentives and disincentives for
registrants to participate.  Here are a few examples:

Incentives:

	o publicly document that the registrant is the rightful user. 
          This is one of the safeguards against hijacking.

	o all address space will be registered, irrespective of 
          current or past allocation policies.

Disincentives:

	o privacy concerns. Concerns about revealing too much personal 
          data in a publicly available registry need to be addressed.

	o commercial confidentiality. Registrants may be concerned about 
          the registry revealing too much about their commercial activities. 
          These concerns need to be addressed.

	o cost. The cost should not exceed the perceived benefits. 


7. What the registry is not. 

The registry is an address registry.  It does not constitute a directory
of ISPs, neither does it license ISPs. 

The registry is not the instrument to implement policies concerning
access to, and routing over the Internet. 

8. Conclusion

The authors believe that the RIPE community needs to develop
registration policies for the IPv4 address space.  This document
presents some initial thoughts on the registry.  We encourage RIPE to
discuss the principles for a registry. 

Once the principles are clear and accepted, RIPE should develop policies
that define registration services. 

Though this document has been developed with IPv4 addresses in mind, the
authors are of the opinion that in general a separation between
distribution and registration policies should be made for all Internet
Number Resources.  Ideally, one registration policy should be applicable
to all resources.