[address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 Conflict of Interests
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 Conflict of Interests
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 Conflict of Interests
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Elvis Daniel Velea
elvis at velea.eu
Thu Jun 11 10:24:27 CEST 2015
Dear Ciprian, These is are false accusations and I please ask you to stop attacking me personally. As I said, if you or someone else have questions about my activity at RIPE NCC, you should contact me personally or the RIPE NCC directly. I understand that my policy proposal can upset you and other people. My intention is not to propose a policy that will affect your business but to propose something that will benefit the entire community. I also understand that we are competitors in the IP Broker space but in this mailing list I am simply talking as a member of the RIPE community. I believe that defaming competition is not a good practice and this is definitely not the place. Again, I apologize if my policy proposal upsets you and other people and I can assure you that my intention is to propose something that will benefit all of us (the RIPE Community) in the long term. Thank you, Elvis PS: Gert, I know I promised yesterday I will no longer reply back to attacks, but I had to reply to this one and ask Ciprian (one more time) to stop. Can you also do something about it? On 11/06/15 06:43, Callum Stuart wrote: > Hello, > > > One people named WW circulated the following info privately to a large > group of people in ripe region. > > can you swear that there was no conflict of interests ? compared > with the FIFA corruption and collapse, how about we involves the > investigation by FBI or Gov authority? maybe only through this way, > the truth can be disclosed to the PUBLIC. > > > > /Elvis, who used to work in RIPE from Nov, 2007 to May 2013, has > conspired with his countryman and allocated plenty of RIPE IPv4 > blocks to their own registered shell companies without employees. / > > /Elvis established its brokerage company as soon as he resigned from > RIPE and has sold out IPv4 blocks that he had reserved into his > “own account” ( one of the sale was to Saudi Telecommunication and > the sale price is around 7US). This is not just an ethics problem > here and he is committing the CRIME! Ironically, it will so easy to > become rich almost in one night by doing what Elvis has done. How > can RIPE just turn a blind eye on his committed Crime ?/ > > / > / > > > /Elvis has taken the advantage of his role as the IPRA ( he knows > better about what IP values and the policy loopholes than the others > ) and purposely allocated plenty of IPv4 blocks to his own shell for > the speculation. / > > / > / > > /Congrats to Elvis, he has succeeded in becoming a millionaire by > committing crime! Shame on those who do nothing to stop the crime. / > > / > / > > /Cobalt IT (Evolva) same position like Elvis.. at same company.. / > > / > / > > / > / > > /See the evidences including ( company registration info, resources, > linkedin profiles etc) in the attachment. / > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 10:56 PM, > address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net wrote: > >> Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to >> address-policy-wg at ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg at ripe.net> >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net >> <mailto:address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net> >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> address-policy-wg-owner at ripe.net >> <mailto:address-policy-wg-owner at ripe.net> >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: RIPE != RIPE NCC (Nick Hilliard) >> 2. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) >> (Elvis Daniel Velea) >> 3. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) >> (Silvia Hagen) >> 4. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) >> (Hannigan, Martin) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:03:03 +0100 >> From: Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie <mailto:nick at inex.ie>> >> To: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com <mailto:randy at psg.com>>, Sascha Luck >> <apwg at c4inet.net <mailto:apwg at c4inet.net>> >> Cc: RIPE address policy WG <address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> <mailto:address-policy-wg at ripe.net>> >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC >> Message-ID: <55784397.1050704 at inex.ie <mailto:55784397.1050704 at inex.ie>> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 >> >> On 10/06/2015 14:03, Randy Bush wrote: >>> what is missing here is that, if only LIRs decided policy, a few >>> thousand folk (likely 10 people on a mailing list), would decide policy >>> affecting millions internet users. >> >> ~980m. >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:16:19 +0300 >> From: Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis at velea.eu <mailto:elvis at velea.eu>> >> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg at ripe.net> >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask >> for the 3rd time) >> Message-ID: <557846B3.1010009 at velea.eu >> <mailto:557846B3.1010009 at velea.eu>> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed >> >> Hi Ciprian, >> >> > so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. >> >> Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked >> you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. >> >> Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday >> telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to >> make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. >> Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks >> against me... >> >> On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: >>> Hi, >> [...] >>>> Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just >>>> making >>>> accusation without any support evidence. >>>> >>>> "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even >>>> approved >>>> this last-second allocation. " >>>> >>>> And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final >>>> decision >>>> about our allocation. >>> You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I >>> only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that >>> approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene >>> but that should also bring some questions. >> You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong >> assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression >> that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all >> the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because >> their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have >> if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false >> assumptions. >> >> >> What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was >> unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members >> may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE >> NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and >> I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation >> received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation >> (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have >> received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. >> If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, >> you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the >> tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including >> the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can >> not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you >> would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict >> others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs >> have been with Lu. >> >> Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were >> at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you >> decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice >> any opinion. >> Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me >> (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs >> from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. >> >> [...] >>>> Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in >>>> reality, I >>>> have never done any business with Elvis now and past. >>> I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and >>> Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the >>> requests). >> >> Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that >> found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as >> with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. >> >> and before that you said: >> >> > It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you >> by the same person that has initiated this proposal. >> >> only to then say: >> >> > Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is >> helping you sell the IPs. >> > Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict >> of interests here. >> >> You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one >> single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you >> started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the >> allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know >> (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no >> single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second >> IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. >> >> I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise >> you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have >> wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly >> or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity >> at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind >> of conspiracy theories where there is none. >> >> I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. >> Again, this was totally unexpected from you. >>> >>> Ciprian >> /elvis >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:31 +0000 >> From: Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen at sunny.ch <mailto:silvia.hagen at sunny.ch>> >> To: "elvis at velea.eu <mailto:elvis at velea.eu>" <elvis at velea.eu >> <mailto:elvis at velea.eu>>, "address-policy-wg at ripe.net >> <mailto:address-policy-wg at ripe.net>" >> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg at ripe.net>> >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask >> for the 3rd time) >> Message-ID: <F1D4404E5E6C614EB9D3083F4D15A7E7C84FB0 at hex02> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment >> >> Silvia >> >> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im >> Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 >> An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg at ripe.net> >> Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i >> ask for the 3rd time) >> >> Hi Ciprian, >> >> > so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. >> >> Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already >> asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. >> >> Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday >> telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued >> to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have >> said. >> Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start >> attacks against me... >> >> On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: >>> Hi, >> [...] >>>> Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just >>>> making accusation without any support evidence. >>>> >>>> "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even >>>> approved this last-second allocation. " >>>> >>>> And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final >>>> decision about our allocation. >>> You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. >>> I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that >>> approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the >>> scene but that should also bring some questions. >> You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong >> assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression >> that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than >> all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal >> because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business >> you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your >> own false assumptions. >> >> >> What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was >> unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members >> may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the >> RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my >> job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the >> documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 >> IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs >> may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. >> If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a >> /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used >> all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong >> - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your >> request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have >> received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we >> have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea >> how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu. >> >> Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you >> were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, >> you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did >> not voice any opinion. >> Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me >> (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more >> IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. >> >> [...] >>>> Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in >>>> reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. >>> I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and >>> Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving >>> the requests). >> >> Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that >> found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just >> as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at >> the NCC. >> >> and before that you said: >> >> > It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to >> you by the same person that has initiated this proposal. >> >> only to then say: >> >> > Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is >> helping you sell the IPs. >> > Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict >> of interests here. >> >> You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one >> single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you >> started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the >> allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you >> know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) >> that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without >> a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. >> >> I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would >> advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you >> have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me >> directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about >> my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of >> interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none. >> >> I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. >> Again, this was totally unexpected from you. >>> >>> Ciprian >> /elvis >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:56:16 +0000 >> From: "Hannigan, Martin" <marty at akamai.com <mailto:marty at akamai.com>> >> To: Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen at sunny.ch <mailto:silvia.hagen at sunny.ch>> >> Cc: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg at ripe.net>" >> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg at ripe.net>> >> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask >> for the 3rd time) >> Message-ID: <E0A86D2C-902D-43DE-8754-42CF14983ED7 at akamai.com >> <mailto:E0A86D2C-902D-43DE-8754-42CF14983ED7 at akamai.com>> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> >> >> It would be great if the combatants can move the theatre of warfare >> operations to their personal mailboxes. >> >> Best, >> >> -M< >> >> >> >>> On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen at sunny.ch >>> <mailto:silvia.hagen at sunny.ch>> wrote: >>> >>> This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment >>> >>> Silvia >>> >>> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- >>> Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] >>> Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea >>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 >>> An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg at ripe.net> >>> Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i >>> ask for the 3rd time) >>> >>> Hi Ciprian, >>> >>>> so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. >>> >>> Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already >>> asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. >>> >>> Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday >>> telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have >>> continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what >>> others have said. >>> Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start >>> attacks against me... >>> >>> On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: >>>> Hi, >>> [...] >>>>> Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just >>>>> making accusation without any support evidence. >>>>> >>>>> "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even >>>>> approved this last-second allocation. " >>>>> >>>>> And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final >>>>> decision about our allocation. >>>> You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. >>>> I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that >>>> approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the >>>> scene but that should also bring some questions. >>> You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong >>> assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the >>> impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not >>> better than all the others that have been attacking me over this >>> policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what >>> kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and >>> companies relying on your own false assumptions. >>> >>> >>> What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was >>> unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC >>> Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working >>> at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very >>> good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth >>> all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received >>> the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) >>> some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these >>> were justified. >>> If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a >>> /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used >>> all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong >>> - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your >>> request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have >>> received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we >>> have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea >>> how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu. >>> >>> Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you >>> were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, >>> you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did >>> not voice any opinion. >>> Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me >>> (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more >>> IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. >>> >>> [...] >>>>> Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in >>>>> reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. >>>> I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and >>>> Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving >>>> the requests). >>> >>> Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said >>> that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, >>> just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent >>> at the NCC. >>> >>> and before that you said: >>> >>>> It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to >>>> you by the same person that has initiated this proposal. >>> >>> only to then say: >>> >>>> Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is >>>> helping you sell the IPs. >>>> Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict >>>> of interests here. >>> >>> You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that >>> one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. >>> However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu >>> receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. >>> Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had >>> forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger >>> allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and >>> senior management approval. >>> >>> I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would >>> advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you >>> have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me >>> directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about >>> my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of >>> interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none. >>> >>> I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. >>> Again, this was totally unexpected from you. >>>> >>>> Ciprian >>> /elvis >> >> >> End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 >> ************************************************* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150611/f3f188b8/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 124222 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150611/f3f188b8/attachment.jpe> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 124335 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150611/f3f188b8/attachment-0001.jpe> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 368083 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150611/f3f188b8/attachment-0002.jpe> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 389737 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150611/f3f188b8/attachment-0003.jpe> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 411642 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150611/f3f188b8/attachment.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 357104 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150611/f3f188b8/attachment-0001.png>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 Conflict of Interests
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 Conflict of Interests
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]