Summary

  • Sander Steffann and Shane Kerr proposed public counts of complaints about Internet number-resource registrations, plus a separate record of returned and reclaimed resources.
  • After a revision and little further feedback, the authors withdrew RIPE proposal 2013-01 on 22 November 2013.

The RIPE NCC keeps careful records of who holds Internet number resources. Sander Steffann wanted one more ledger: what happened when someone complained about those records? He and Shane Kerr put that question into proposal 2013-01 in February 2013. Its suggested answer was a public counter, not a public wall of accusations.

The revised proposal divided incoming reports into “new” and “under investigation.” Closed cases would have their own totals: outside the system's remit, resolved by the holder, resources returned, or no violation found. The complainant and the organisation named in a report could follow its progress privately. A second public file would show resources returned to RIPE NCC, their dates and why they came back. Voluntary return, lost contact and reclamation for a policy violation would occupy different boxes. The proposal expressly left the rules for allocation and revocation alone. It was asking the registry to show its working.

That distinction drew the argument. The proposal itself records the objection that this would force an internal RIPE NCC procedure into community policy. Earlier discussion raised concerns about naming holders before an allegation had been tested. In May 2013, the authors revised the text after feedback, adding the private progress section and sending it through another discussion round. A public aggregate count and a private case file were deliberate different things. The distinction still did not produce a queue of supporters.

By October, Steffann asked the working group whether it wanted the proposal at all. The latest version had received no feedback, he said. RIPE NCC's withdrawal notice followed on 22 November: the proposers judged consensus unlikely after the original objections and very little later response. Nobody rang a bell to declare a dramatic defeat. The counter went away after its authors waited for a room that barely answered.

The episode is a small, sharp lesson in registry visibility. Resource records can be meticulously public while the volume and disposition of complaints about them stay harder to see. Steffann's proposed numbers would not have settled each case. They would have made the workload and outcomes countable. The proposal's fate is itself countable: one revised draft, one appeal for feedback, one withdrawal.