[address-policy-wg] RIPE staff vs Court
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE staff vs Court
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE staff vs Court
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Max Tulyev
president at ukraine.su
Wed Oct 21 20:36:57 CEST 2009
Marco, I'm not comlaining for a certain hostmaster. I'm trying to adjust a policy when one man with their feeling or opinion can't drop down somebody's business. The difference is very big: will you go through arbitration BEFORE or AFTER the blackdown of your network. Marco Hogewoning wrote: > > On Oct 21, 2009, at 8:01 PM, Mark Scholten wrote: > >> Hello Max, >> >> As long as it is Dutch Court I don't see a problem. >> >> If you are against a decision RIPE did make you can go to Dutch Court and >> ask if they decide to change it. > > > No you can't...under the standard service agreement which you signed > when you became a LIR you signed for the conflict arbitration procedure > which is described in RIPE-174. > > To comment on the orginal complaint, seems to me you got bitten by > RIPE-471, section 6.6: > > ==== > 6.6 Validity of an Assignment > All assignments are valid as long as the original criteria on which the > assignment was based are still valid and the assignment is properly > registered in the RIPE Database. If an assignment is made for a specific > purpose and that purpose no longer exists, the assignment is no longer > valid. If an assignment is based on information that turns out to be > invalid, the assignment is no longer valid. > > For these reasons it is important that LIRs make sure that assignments > approved by the RIPE NCC are properly registered in the database. The > inetnum object or objects for approved assignments must use the > netname(s) approved by the RIPE NCC and not be larger than the approved > size. Additionally, the date in the first “changed:” attribute must not > be earlier than the date of the approval message from the RIPE NCC. > > The RIPE NCC reviews assignments made by LIRs when evaluating requests > for additional allocations (see 5.3). It also runs consistency checks as > part of the auditing activity requested by the community as described in > the RIPE document “RIPE NCC Audit Activity” found at: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/audit.html > > ==== > > So as I understand the big question here is if the original criteria on > which those assignments are made still are valid by changing > registration data and administratively move them to another entity or > country. > > I guess the only people who can answer that question are the NCC > hostmasters, please keep in mind this is a RIPE community mailinglist > and not the NCC who you are complaining to. Nobody on this mailinglist > has access to supporting documents or when they do are bound by NDA so > nobody on this list is capable of making sany sane judgement wether this > complaint is justified or what the background is for sending the letter > about reclaiming space in the first place. > > So please as a simple request, please take this to where it belongs and > contact hostmaster at ripe about this or start a arbitration as described > in 174: > > "Initiation of the Procedure > > In case of conflicts both parties should document their grievances and > communicate them to the other party. They should then try to resolve the > conflict between themselves. Only if such resolution has been tried and > documented by at least one of the parties can the formal procedure > start. The party initiating the procedure will select an arbiter from > the pool and provide the arbiter with a written summary of their > position in the conflict as well as documentation of their efforts to > resolve it. The arbiter shall verify that sufficient attempts at direct > resolution have been made. He shall then notify the other party that the > resolution procedure has been initiated. The other party will then have > two calendar weeks to either accept arbitration by this arbiter or to > select one of their own from the pool. If they do not react within this > time, the first arbiter can decide to proceed with the single arbiter > procedure or to select another arbiter from the pool for the other party > and proceed with the three arbiter procedure." > > Thank you > > MarcoH > -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE staff vs Court
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RIPE staff vs Court
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]