RIPE 61 RIPE NCC Services Working Group
Rome, 17 November 2010, 16:00 – 17:30
Co-Chairs: Kurtis Lindqvist, Bijal Sanghani (not present)
Revision Number: 1
A: Administrative Matters
Kurtis Lindquist started the session at 16:00 local time. He welcomed the attendees, announced that the minutes from RIPE 60 were approved, and introduced the RIPE NCC senior management team.
B. RIPE NCC Update - RIPE NCC Senior Management Team
RIPE NCC’s Axel Pawlik, Daniel Karrenberg, Paul Rendek, Jochem de Ruig and Andrei Robachevsky gave updates on the RIPE NCC’s current activities.
The presentations are available at:
Brian Nisbet, Anti-Abuse Working Group chair, asked the RIPE NCC to come up with a single plan to deal with all of the proposals being put forth with regards to the registry (anti-abuse and the membership, proactive checks on information, relationship towards sponsoring LIRs). He asked when the RIPE NCC might be able to produce such a plan.
Daniel Karrenberg answered that the RIPE NCC are doing quite a lot already, including developing some ideas about data accuracy and maintenance in the database. He added that they haven’t done much with reputation issues yet, but that Training Services have surveyed attendees at LIR training courses and we were currently studying the results.
Daniel said that the RIPE NCC would work quickly on such a plan if they got clear direction from the community. He suspected that there might be some conflict of interest in what the anti-abuse working group wanted and other members of the community and that there needed to be consensus. He added that RIPE NCC was committed to working with the community on any such plan.
Brian Nisbet added that the immediacy for the request was that 2010-09 and 10 were in discussion phase in the Anti-Abuse Working Group (and Database WG) and he doesn’t want a lot of work to go into it unnecessarily. What they want to achieve is giving people what they want in the best way that the database and registry can provide. Brian said that he spoke to the proposers and they are willing to hold back discussions until the RIPE NCC comes up with an answer, but dates or an arrangement will have to be put in place some point in the near future.
Daniel agreed and said the best strategy is to talk to each other about it to make sure everyone’s going in the same direction.
Shane Kerr from Internet Systems Consortium (ISC) praised the work going into governance and documenting processes. He asked Jochem de Ruig if the documentation process had any implications on the Policy Development Process. Jochem said it was a good point and that’s why the RIPE NCC is going to carefully bring such documents forward to the community, and when there is a conflict, it needs to be discussed. He added that perhaps some pieces of a document would have to become a policy document, rather than a procedural document.
Shane asked if these documents would be published through the RIPE NCC Services Working Group.
Jochem replied that the documents would be published through the RIPE NCC Services Group and any other relevant Working Groups.
C. RIPE NCC Processes and IPv4 Address Space End Game – Andrea Cima
Andrea Cima from the RIPE NCC gave an update on the RIPE NCC Processes and IPv4 Address Space End-Game
The presentation is available at:
James Blessing from Limelight Networks asked if the reason to have to agents checking each request was to speed the process up.
Andrea said that was one part of it, and that it’s also for improved consistency when they’re down to the last few resources.
James asked if there would be a delay in dealing with requests while people get used to having two people for every request.
Andrea replied that he didn’t foresee any big delays because having two people evaluating requests might actually speed it up.
Alain Bidron from France Telecom asked about seeing firmer visibility on the depletion of the RIPE NCC’s IPv4 pool.
Andrea said that maximizing transparency was being discussed and he could not say if there would be a IPv4 depletion counter posted on the RIPE NCC website in the future.
Niall O’Reilly from University College Dublin asked when the RIPE NCC would be in a position to say something about the introduction of non-allocation related registration services, particularly for the ERX community and for transfers rather than allocations.
Andrea asked if he was asking about when the RIPE NCC runs out of IPv4.
Niall said that there were two aspects of it. The first aspect is when IPv4 runs out and he expects a need to track transfers. The second aspect is the formalisation of the relationship with legacy resource holders.
Andrea replied that in some cases, the ERX space holders are already members of the RIPE NCC and that they’ve moved their resources under the LIR umbrella. Andrea said that Rob could better answer the rest of the question.
Rob Blokzijl, RIPE Chair, said that work was going on to define the registry of Internet resources currently in the RIPE NCC service region. He added that this was a registry of resources, not a list of resource holders. He emphasized that in one year, it will be difficult to explain to ‘new kids on the block’ the difference between a resource and a historical resource (ERX), which the RIPE NCC has administrative responsibility for. He added that in many cases, the RIPE NCC doesn’t have a formal relationship with ERX holders, but that was a problem we needed to solve. Rob then proposed working on a unified registration policy. In short, Rob and the RIPE NCC are working on it and as soon as something is on paper, it will go out to the community.
Daniel Karrenberg pointed out that the framework for this was already presented at RIPE 60.
D. Update on the 2007-1 Project – Arne Kiessling
Arne Kiessling from the RIPE NCC gave an update on 2007-01. The presentation is available here:
There were no questions.
E. Resource Certification – Alex Band
Alex Band from the RIPE NCC gave an update on Resource Certification. The presentation is available here:
James Blessing from Limelight Networks asked Alex to also keep a simple version for 2 a.m. emergencies and Alex agreed to it.
F. LIR Closure and Deregistration Procedure – Athina Fragkouli
Athina Fragkouli from the RIPE NCC gave an update on the Local Internet Registry (LIR) Closure and Deregistration Procedure document. The presentation is available here:
Sander Steffann asked how it could be the contributor’s responsibility to de-register if they’ve gone bankrupt. He also asked Athina to clarify the usage of ‘responsibility.’
Athina said that the contributors manage resources, so if something happens the contributor, the procedure dictates that the NCC will take over.
Rudiger Volk from Deutsche Telecom gave thanks for the difficult work that went into the document, a document that presented the big picture. He then asked about different meanings of failing for bankruptcy in different jurisdictions. He said that in Germany, legal system bankruptcy was not the right time for returning resources as they would be getting legal protection and could continue operations, so that was the point still to be ironed out.
Athina agreed with Rudiger.
Alain Bidron from France Telecom asked about having to comply with these rules within the RIPE NCC service region.
Athina said that RIPE NCC is governed by Dutch law and must comply with Dutch court orders only.
Lu Heng from Outside Heaven asked if the RIPE NCC has to validate legal orders from Dutch court only.
Athina confirmed it that this was the case.
Wilfried Woeber from ACOnet/Vienna University asked about the definition of a court order delivered by a local infrastructure, as he saw a potential hardship for End User assignments: If the sponsoring LIR got into trouble, the assignment would be lost.
Athina said this needed further clarification but there was another document on contractual relationship changes between End User and a sponsoring LIR (the End User has to find another Sponsoring LIR).
Yakovenko Volodymyr from Google asked what happens if the LIR is unresponsive to emails due to technical difficulties.
Athina replied that there are several ways of contacting LIRs and this procedure is described in the document.
Yakovenko then asked if the Dutch law jurisdiction is universal and applied everywhere in the world (as it is the case with UK law).
Athina said that national authorities may have agreements between each other, but she could not specify the details.
As time for the session was running out , Kurt suggested that further discussion on the topic should be taken to the mailing list.
There were no AOBs.
Kurtis ended the session at 17:40 local time.