[ripe-167] Impressions brought from Moscow meeting
Fri Feb 13 14:31:28 CET 1998
On Wed, 11 Feb 1998, Alexei Platonov wrote: > Hi, > > 1)New RIR is not pure European, it may include part of Asia. > 2)For _our_ situation the only acceptable variant is that the > certain country is served by the RIR if 2/3 (or 4/5, or 5/6 ... - we'll > decide) of LIRs in this country wish so. By the way, Andrew Stesin > knows about this very well - we decided it on ISP meeting in Moscow where > he has been present, that's why I don't understand some of his arguments > at all. He wants me to confirm this principle once more ? OK, I do it. > Thus I'm quite sure that Ukraine will _not_ be included in the area > served by the new RIR. Thank you Alexei, It's a good basis for discussion. Maybe I'll look boring nuisance, but I need to remind: Developments of the last few years however suggest that it is difficult for the RIPE NCC to serve all parts of this area because in practise there exist a number of practical problems. These problems have to do with circumstances caused by: - local language problems - time zone differences - travel difficulties - effort necessary to organise coordination meetings Questions and comments: 1. Why I could not found any explanation what the main diffrence between RIPE NCC and RIPN is? I supposed, that it will be working language, but you neither confirmed nor refuted my suspicion. If working language of new RIR will be English, please describe the problem named "local language problems" in more details. 2. Moscow mean time differs from Amsterdam EET +2h. Do these two hours is a real problem for registries in CIS countries (except Russian East) 3. No complains. Visa requirements, etc.etc.etc. 4. Moscow meeting has proved, that it's not a problem to arrange regional meetings. I think RIPE community will meet your efforts to arrange RIPE meeting somewhere in CIS with understanding. Suggestions: 1. If RIPE community will found establishing of new RIR in CIS(Russia) desirable, do you see any problem, that LIRs will choose between 2 European RIRs? In some countries (including Russia) p[art of LIRs will be served by RIPE NCC and part by RIPN. If RIPN will prove, that their service is on the same or higher level than RIPE NCC is providing, LIRs will turn back to RIPN. 2. Administrative decision for whole country must be considered as inadmissible. At present only some countries could express their average position by LIRs voting. What could we say about _2/3 (or 4/5, or 5/6...)_ LIRs in appropriate country, when we coud not found them at all!!! Situation could became very unstable, if newly established LIR's (for ex. in Kazakhstan it will be enaugh 2 or 3) will decide, that _ALL_ LIRs in their country starting from Day V. might be served by another RIR. registered (where the admin-c resides). 3. During the first step new RIR must be run under supervision from RIPE NCC, probably in position of GM to achieve the same service level and have the same policy and procedures. Most important is to have RIR really independant and working for whole community. Hope, that your reply could settle down the discussion to more constructive mode. With best regards, Rimas P.S. Sorry to be so slow-minded. Now I understand the keynote idea of Mike Norris: OK, but what do you feel about the corollary: is a RIR free to choose any LIR that seeks service, or is it constrained to serve only those within a certain (or sometimes uncertain) geographical area? Before answering, remember what the E in RIPE, the A in ARIN and the AP in APNIC stand for. Yes, I could confirm, that R in RIPN stands for Russia and is not associated with me anyhow. :) r.
[ lir-wg Archive ]