From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Sun Dec 1 18:08:43 2002 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 18:08:43 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20021126130827.01ef4a38@localhost> Message-ID: <8BCFA108-054F-11D7-B37A-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> > Axel, > When you look at the RIPE NCC budget for the last > few years, you will see that after increases of 31%, 27% > and 21% for the last three years, we have budgeted for > an "inflation correction" of 4% for 2003. > I am on an airplane and can't look up the budgets of previous years so please help me out here. Could you compare these increases to the growth of LIRs in the past? What I am not following is that if we had a increase in LIRs, I can see that we needed a increase in the budget. I agree that to get to acceptable service levels we need a increase in the budget (we may need even more), but I would like a measurement of how the budget growth fits with the new number of LIRs and new LIRs. I am currently the CEO of a organization that is similar to RIPE NCC in ways (we are owned by a foundation though - but still for the best of the Internet), and I find my self arguing with customers everyday of what we spend money on. (the following not meant in response to Axel but more in general) With all due respect, I think that the discussion so far as been pretty odd. Asking valid questions on what the money is used for, and if RIPE NCC could be run more efficiently is not abusive or vasting bandwidth. It's the duty and responsibility of us all. Some will come out in favor, some against. That is the way it happens. If we start questioning the right to question the RIPE NCC budget - I am really afraid. Then we have much larger problems than the budget. Questioning the process is something else. That is very straight forward (with the exception that I agree with Philip that we should do it with the RIPE meetings). Best regards, - kurtis - From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Mon Dec 2 13:25:09 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 12:25:09 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. References: <38289614-02EE-11D7-B37A-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <013501c299fd$dac4a050$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> > I agree. The cost of going to Amsterdam for one day is not worth it. With my 'consipiracy nut' hat on, I suggest that is intentional. Peter From Bovio at aol.com Mon Dec 2 13:44:44 2002 From: Bovio at aol.com (Bovio at aol.com) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 07:44:44 EST Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? Message-ID: In a message dated 12/2/02 1:06:32 PM Romance Standard Time, kurtis at kurtis.pp.se writes: Kurtis, All, now that the discussion on the list came back to the previous (good) level I am willing to give it a try and explain the fee raise. > The burst of the dot.com bubble is no news. It was there a year ago. > Businesses adopted and cut back to cope with it. Some did better, some > did worse. RIPE NCC seems to belong in the later category. If this > would have been a Ltd, the share holders would be asking if the > management and accountants was a sleep. > The burst of the dot.com bubble has indeed impacted the RIPE-NCC, but not as much as one can imagine: the Internet is still growing, although there are less players providing services, and therefore the amount of addresses to be assigned/allocated is obviously still growing. In addition, as already explained by Axel, closing LIRs create at least as much work as creating new ones. Here are some facts for you to consider that may help understanding the situation better. 1) The RIPE-NCC business model during the last few years was biased for a number of reasons, in particular a Dutch law that prevent a non profit organization to accumulate monies beyond a certain amount (putting a limit to the contingency fund), and the too conservative assumptions made concerning the growth. In the last 3 years the Ripe-NCC fees were reduced each year because the number of new LIR each year was increasing more than forecasted and the total income was exceeding the contingency fund amount. In other words in the last 3 years most of the expenditures were supported by the influx of new LIRs coming in each year, which "artificially" reduced the fees for existing LIRs. This was no longer the case in 2002, where the amount of new LIR turned out to be overestimated, which caused, for the first time, a big hole in the budget, which was covered by the contingency fund. This old model obviously no longer works, so the LIRs have now to pay for 2003 the "actual" fees, i.e. more or less the fees paid in 1999. 2) The vast majority of expenses of the RIPE-NCC are wages. The RIPE-NCC is now comprised of about 100 employees. These people were hired during the fat-cows years both to support and improve the core activities such as registration services and database, as well as activities proposed during various RIPE working group meetings, and approved by the AGM. To fire 1 employee in NL takes as much money as to pay his salary for a full year (the financial impact/improvement would be apparent only on the second year), so since the contingency fund was almost gone we had to recover the money and replenish the reserves as explained by Axel. 3) The board is now concerned (and focusing) with long term scenarios that guarantee the stability of the core services and take in account the industry situation, the needs of the membership, and their willingness (or not) to pay for additional services. Needless to say since last August, when we became aware of the situation, Axel was asked to reduce as much as possible the expenditures (but since most of the cost are wages there was not much he could save) and to provide different possible scenarios for the future. Year 2003 will be a transition year: we believe the membership survey will help in understanding what the membership expect the RIPE-NCC to do and whether it is prepared to pay for such activities (beyond the core activities). We will also closely monitor the discussion in the LIR-wg and other lists, and try to collect as much input as possible from RIPE meetings. We will then work with Axel to prepare a business plan for 2004 that reflects what we learned. If you have input don't hesitate to approach me (or any other member of the board) at RIPE meetings or write mail to me. Best Regards Daniele -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Dec 2 18:14:49 2002 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 17:14:49 +0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20021202171449.GB6526@guest-wv-21.ripe.net> [Some personal perspectives from an old hand] The RIPE NCC is not a normal company, for better or worse! The RIPE NCC does not make a profit. The agreed model for RIPE NCC funding is to divide the costs by the number of members, with size categories added for fairness. In times of peak demand the RIPE NCC still has to deliver; it cannot just decide not to grow, produce less services than demanded, and then choose the customers that get services and those that do not. The RIPE NCC cannot build huge reserves in order not to endanger its tax exempt status. All this has led to steadily decreasing membership fees over the years. Nobody has been complaining. Now the number of members to divide the costs is smaller than planned. Fees are increased according to the funding model. Everything is working as expected. And, as expected, some people complain. Fees are back to about the 1999 levels. Absolutely speaking they are still very very low compared to other expenses of most members. Think what an unstable RIPE NCC would cost you in real terms, or what a government operated NCC would cost if you want a real nightmare. Respectfully but slightly irritatedly yours Daniel From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Mon Dec 2 17:33:42 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:33:42 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. References: <38289614-02EE-11D7-B37A-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> <013501c299fd$dac4a050$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021202160532.GB24283@enigma.ie> Message-ID: <01d701c29a20$93eeffe0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> > With all due respect Peter: where do you get off? > > If "they" really wanted to prevent people attending board meetings, > "they" would pull ICANN-like stunts, or any one of a thousand > well-known tricks. This is just complaining for the sake of it. I appear to have forgotten the :-) for the humour impaired. Consider it restored. Peter From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Mon Dec 2 23:29:26 2002 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 23:29:26 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. In-Reply-To: <013501c299fd$dac4a050$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <83E702CC-0645-11D7-B37A-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> >> I agree. The cost of going to Amsterdam for one day is not worth it. > > With my 'consipiracy nut' hat on, I suggest that is intentional. > Just for the record - I disagree. Actually that is besides the issue. This is pure logistics nothing else. - kurtis - From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Dec 2 21:39:16 2002 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 20:39:16 +0000 Subject: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. In-Reply-To: <38289614-02EE-11D7-B37A-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021126212647.00ae4d18@localhost> <38289614-02EE-11D7-B37A-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <20021202203916.GA2705@reifchen.karrenberg.net> On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 05:26:59PM +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > > I agree. The cost of going to Amsterdam for one day is not worth it. If something was *really wrong* it would be worth it; and people would go. This is a feature. Daniel From nigel at packetexchange.net Tue Dec 3 12:15:28 2002 From: nigel at packetexchange.net (Nigel Titley) Date: 03 Dec 2002 11:15:28 +0000 Subject: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. In-Reply-To: <20021202203916.GA2705@reifchen.karrenberg.net> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021126212647.00ae4d18@localhost> <38289614-02EE-11D7-B37A-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> <20021202203916.GA2705@reifchen.karrenberg.net> Message-ID: <1038914128.1135.7.camel@magrat> On Mon, 2002-12-02 at 20:39, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 05:26:59PM +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > > > > I agree. The cost of going to Amsterdam for one day is not worth it. > > If something was *really wrong* it would be worth it; and people would go. > This is a feature. I'm hoping this was said somewhat tongue-in-cheek. It depends on whether you think the AGM of an association should be attended by only a handful of people, with an idiosyncratic board electoral process that can easily be hijacked by one or two dedicated activists, or a single large registry. I don't think that is healthy. Nigel -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Tue Dec 3 13:03:36 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:03:36 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021126212647.00ae4d18@localhost> <38289614-02EE-11D7-B37A-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> <20021202203916.GA2705@reifchen.karrenberg.net> Message-ID: <012501c29ac4$02d70a30$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> > If something was *really wrong* it would be worth it; and people would go. > This is a feature. So much for an association founded on some sort of democratic principle. I think my call for the AGM to be included as an adjunct to a RIPE meeting will also call for FULL postal voting for non-attending members. Peter From m.hallgren at free.fr Tue Dec 3 13:08:09 2002 From: m.hallgren at free.fr (Michael Hallgren) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:08:09 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. In-Reply-To: <012501c29ac4$02d70a30$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: > > So much for an association founded on some sort of democratic principle. > > I think my call for the AGM to be included as an adjunct to a RIPE meeting > will also call for FULL postal voting for non-attending members. Why not on-line? :) Somewhat more seriously, what would be a suitable alternative to "an association founded on some sort of democratic principle"? Cheers, mh -- Michael Hallgren, http://m.hallgren.free.fr/, mh2198-ripe > > Peter > > From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Tue Dec 3 13:36:33 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 12:36:33 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. References: Message-ID: <013201c29ac8$9d4c5f80$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> > Somewhat more seriously, what would be a suitable alternative to "an > association > founded on some sort of democratic principle"? I keep forgetting that many people may not read colloquial English on this list as often as I use it. I was commenting on my 'disgust' (can't think of a better word) that my understanding of the RIPE operating on a democratic, member-based priciple is being undermined by the AGM being held in such a way as to make it difficult for members to participate. Once someone like Daniel make comments like he did, I start getting more - rather than less - concerned over my, originally misplaced, worries over RIPE working like it maybe should. Perhaps the next step is to forget to announce the date and location of the next AGM ? rgds, -- Peter From m.hallgren at free.fr Tue Dec 3 13:51:34 2002 From: m.hallgren at free.fr (Michael Hallgren) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 13:51:34 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. In-Reply-To: <013201c29ac8$9d4c5f80$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: > > > Somewhat more seriously, what would be a suitable alternative to "an > > association > > founded on some sort of democratic principle"? > > I keep forgetting that many people may not read colloquial English on this > list as often as I use it. I was commenting on my 'disgust' > (can't think of > a better word) that my understanding of the RIPE operating on a > democratic, > member-based priciple is being undermined by the AGM being held in such a > way as to make it difficult for members to participate. > > Once someone like Daniel make comments like he did, I start getting more - > rather than less - concerned over my, originally misplaced, worries over > RIPE working like it maybe should. > > Perhaps the next step is to forget to announce the date and > location of the > next AGM ? Sorry, didn't catch the twist -- . mh > > rgds, > -- > Peter > > From hpholen at tiscali.no Tue Dec 3 21:59:12 2002 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 21:59:12 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? Message-ID: <3D9C22080000D0A4@cpfe7.be.tisc.dk> | Sorry, maybe I do not participate quite as much as I would like, but the fee | for a SMALL registry has increased by more that 50% in a year. I just got | the invoice and had to back track. My budgets are somewhat unbalanced now... | | That is somewhat high a jump isn't it ? What is the average EU inflation | figure ? 4% ? While the increase in the fee for SMALL lirs is indeed 53% from 2002 to 2003 it may be useful to look back some years to get the complete picure: RIPE doc # Small Medium Large Enterprise Signup fee 2003 265 2 750 3 750 5 250 2 750 2 500 2002 237 1 800 2 500 3 400 1 800 2 100 2001 215 2 100 2 950 3 900 2 100 2 100 199 2 400 3 350 4 400 2 400 2 100 1999 188 2 650 3 700 4 900 2 650 2 100 1998 175 2 450 2 400 4 500 2 450 2 000 1997 151 2 200 3 000 4 000 2 200 1 300 1996 143 1 500 4 500 8 500 2 000 1995 134 2 000 6 000 12 000 1 000 1994 84 3 000 6 000 10 000 1 000 1993 84 2 250 4 500 7 500 As you can see from this the fee was actually lowered by 9%, 13% and 14% the 3 previous years, so the fee is no back ? 100 above the level it was in 1999. It is still lower than the all time high in 1994. | Can someone from the RIPE management comment on how much money is spent on | non-core (IP management, co-ordination and associated registry activities) ? ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-255.txt Looking at the revenues some of the revenue stream are directly related to some of the activities If I assume Meetings => Coordination, ENUM => new projects, TTM => TTM, Interest => Surplus and adjust the costs of theese before I do a split I get the following split of the fee for the small LIR: Registration 44 % 1 209 Coordination 26 % 726 TTM 3 % 92 New 7 % 182 Admin 12 % 339 Surplus 7 % 202 100 % 2 750 I realise there are several inacuracies in this algoritm but it gives some picture on how the money are spent. It may also be useful to compare with the other registries: RIPE ARIN APNIC LACNIC ? $ $ Small 2 750 2 500 2 500 2 500 Medium 3 750 5 000 5 000 5 000 Large 5 250 10 000 10 000 10 000 X-Large 20 000 20 000 In this comparison there are several inaccuracies as I have used the first year fee for ARIN and LACNIC, the renewal fees are slightly lower, and the categories probably differ a bit from region to region. My observation from this picture however is that RIPE charges the small LIRs relatively more that the large LIRs. -hph Med Vennlig Hilsen // Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen From CHallam at sdlintl.com Wed Dec 4 03:04:18 2002 From: CHallam at sdlintl.com (Chris Hallam) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 11:04:18 +0900 Subject: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls . Message-ID: <058E4C246CF26940A5D5EE0E3AE8475534917C@tokyomail1.sdlintl.com> 'I think my call for the AGM to be included as an adjunct to a RIPE meeting.'. I think this proposal makes sense too. Also, is it possible to come up with a better format for expressing such votes/opinions. I think the email based forum is good for getting a general opinion in regard to a particular issue, but in certain cases it may be useful to have an on line voting format just so that the numbers can be recorded without generating distribution list email traffic. Chris -----Original Message----- From: Peter Galbavy [mailto:peter.galbavy at knowtion.net] Sent: 03 December 2002 21:04 To: Daniel Karrenberg; Kurt Erik Lindqvist Cc: lir-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. > If something was *really wrong* it would be worth it; and people would go. > This is a feature. So much for an association founded on some sort of democratic principle. I think my call for the AGM to be included as an adjunct to a RIPE meeting will also call for FULL postal voting for non-attending members. Peter ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. ********************************************************************** From pfs at cisco.com Wed Dec 4 02:28:13 2002 From: pfs at cisco.com (Philip Smith) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:28:13 +1000 Subject: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. In-Reply-To: <20021202203916.GA2705@reifchen.karrenberg.net> References: <38289614-02EE-11D7-B37A-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> <5.1.0.14.2.20021126212647.00ae4d18@localhost> <38289614-02EE-11D7-B37A-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021204112402.00ae3fc8@lint.cisco.com> At 20:39 02/12/2002 +0000, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 05:26:59PM +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > > > > I agree. The cost of going to Amsterdam for one day is not worth it. > >If something was *really wrong* it would be worth it; and people would go. >This is a feature. Ah, but in the Internet if something is really broken we route around it. :-( I think we are trying to find a way of fixing the bit we are routing around, if indeed the bit we are currently routing around is broken. Let's be brave and route some "packets" that way. If it doesn't work, well, at least we tried. philip -- From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Wed Dec 4 05:58:14 2002 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 05:58:14 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <20021202171449.GB6526@guest-wv-21.ripe.net> Message-ID: > Daniel, > In times of peak demand the RIPE NCC still has to deliver; > it cannot just decide not to grow, produce less services than demanded, > and then choose the customers that get services and those that do not. > > The RIPE NCC cannot build huge reserves in order not to endanger > its tax exempt status. > > All this has led to steadily decreasing membership fees over the years. > Nobody has been complaining. > you are here implying that the members only react because it's to their disadvantage. Notice that I am not necessarily against raising the fees, but doing so with a declining number of members requires good reasoning and motivation. It also demands that the RIPE NCC demonstrates that they have realized the situation and that this is being dealt with in a way that will not lead to new raises in a year. There is nothing strange in this. What is starting to worry me is the replies indicating that asking these questions would be improper.... If the raised fees in combination with a decreasing number of members leads to a significant improvement in service I am all for it. If it just keep the current state - we as a community have a problem. - kurtis - From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Tue Dec 3 20:42:34 2002 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 20:42:34 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5E8407F2-06F7-11D7-A3F3-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> > The burst of the dot.com bubble has indeed impacted the RIPE-NCC, but > not as much as one can imagine: the Internet is still growing, > although there are less players providing services, and therefore the > amount of addresses to be assigned/allocated is obviously still > growing. In addition, as already explained by Axel, closing LIRs > create at least as much work as creating new ones. Ok, so for next year we will see a staff reduction or a "re-prioritistion"? Just to be clear, I am no way advocating staff reductions. But I think that the RIPE NCC have to be way more clear on where they put their priorities and where the money is spent. If it is claimed that this money is needed to run the NCC at a certain support level - fine, but then the paying members need to be abel to see that. > 2) The vast majority of expenses of the RIPE-NCC are wages. The > RIPE-NCC is now comprised of about 100 employees. These people were > hired during the fat-cows years both to support and improve the core > activities such as registration services and database, as well as > activities proposed during various RIPE working group meetings, and > approved by the AGM. To fire 1 employee in NL takes as much money as > to pay his salary for a full year (the financial impact/ Well, after have been part of doing layoffs at a Dutch company I know more about this than I ever wanted to. What you are saying is both true and not true. But let's leave that for the time being. The interesting part is that by keeping the employees the RIPE NCC signals either of two things : 1) The "extra" staff will lead to a significant improvement of services 2) The "new LIR" rate will pick up in a year. I hope that the plan is 1), otherwise I think the RIPE NCC mgmt will have some explaining to do in a years time. > improvement would be apparent only on the second year), so since the > contingency fund was almost gone we had to recover the money and > replenish the reserves as explained by Axel. So does this mean that we need to plan for an increase for next year as well? > 3) The board is now concerned (and focusing) with long term scenarios > that guarantee the stability of the core services and take in account > the industry I would very much appreciate some details on what is mean with "stability". > Year 2003 will be a transition year: we believe the membership survey > will help in understanding what the membership expect the RIPE-NCC to > do and whether it is prepared to pay for such activities (beyond the > core activities). We will also closely monitor the discussion in the > LIR-wg and other lists, and try to collect as much input as possible > from RIPE meetings. We will then work with Axel to prepare a business > plan for 2004 that reflects what we learned. I am now playing the devils advocate so don't take this literal - the RIPE NCCs number one focus is to provide adequate registration services. Anything else is pure bonus. That said, there is a lot of that bonus that is worth paying for, but currently there is little or no insight into what that bonus is costing us - and why. Best regards, - kurtis - From niallm at enigma.ie Mon Dec 2 17:05:32 2002 From: niallm at enigma.ie (Niall Richard Murphy) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:05:32 +0000 Subject: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. In-Reply-To: <013501c299fd$dac4a050$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> References: <38289614-02EE-11D7-B37A-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> <013501c299fd$dac4a050$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <20021202160532.GB24283@enigma.ie> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 12:25:09PM -0000, Peter Galbavy wrote: > > I agree. The cost of going to Amsterdam for one day is not worth it. > With my 'consipiracy nut' hat on, I suggest that is intentional. With all due respect Peter: where do you get off? If "they" really wanted to prevent people attending board meetings, "they" would pull ICANN-like stunts, or any one of a thousand well-known tricks. This is just complaining for the sake of it. Niall -- Enigma Consulting Limited: Security, UNIX and telecommunications consultants. Address: Floor 2, 45 Dawson Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. 802.11 deployment in Dublin: http://www.enigma.ie/wardrive/ From niallm at enigma.ie Mon Dec 2 17:35:26 2002 From: niallm at enigma.ie (Niall Richard Murphy) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:35:26 +0000 Subject: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. In-Reply-To: <01d701c29a20$93eeffe0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> References: <38289614-02EE-11D7-B37A-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> <013501c299fd$dac4a050$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021202160532.GB24283@enigma.ie> <01d701c29a20$93eeffe0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <20021202163526.GA88978@enigma.ie> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 04:33:42PM -0000, Peter Galbavy wrote: > I appear to have forgotten the :-) for the humour impaired. Consider it > restored. >From the tone of your earlier posts it is sometimes difficult to tell ;) NRM -- Enigma Consulting Limited: Security, UNIX and telecommunications consultants. Address: Floor 2, 45 Dawson Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. 802.11 deployment in Dublin: http://www.enigma.ie/wardrive/ From Bovio at aol.com Wed Dec 4 09:51:09 2002 From: Bovio at aol.com (Bovio at aol.com) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 03:51:09 EST Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? Message-ID: <1aa.d0176ec.2b1f1bfd@aol.com> In a message dated 12/4/02 5:58:30 AM Romance Standard Time, kurtis at kurtis.pp.se writes: Kurtis, > Ok, so for next year we will see a staff reduction or a > "re-prioritistion"? As I wrote earlier we expect the survey to tell us what the membership at large expects the RIPE-NCC to do. If the members indicate that they are only intrested in core activities some restructuring will be required. I personally doubt that this will be the case and I do not think a staff reduction will be needed. > So does this mean that we need to plan for an increase for next year as > well? The current budget/activity plan, as published, shows that we are forecasting zero growth for 2003. As I already explained the business model is changed and we no longer expect new LIRs to cover most of the charges. The fees set for 2003 allow to cover the current expenditures, and generate some surplus to recover part of the contingency fund. If our forecast (zero growth) is accurate, or conservative, the fees should remain at this level (unless, again, the membership survey gives us totally different signals). > > >3) The board is now concerned (and focusing) with long term scenarios > >that guarantee the stability of the core services and take in account > >the industry > > I would very much appreciate some details on what is mean with > "stability". Stability for me means that in n years the RIPE-NCC will still be able to efficiently run core services as a non profit organization, to the satisfaction of its members/customers (at least the majority of them ;-)) > > I am now playing the devils advocate so don't take this literal - the > RIPE NCCs number one focus is to provide adequate registration > services. Anything else is pure bonus. > The RIPE-NCC was never meant to be "only" about registration services. At any rate I do not believe the RIPE database can be considered "a bonus" anyway. Regards Daniele -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Wed Dec 4 09:57:10 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:57:10 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: <1aa.d0176ec.2b1f1bfd@aol.com> Message-ID: <005301c29b73$217fe790$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> > The RIPE-NCC was never meant to be "only" about registration services. At any > rate I do not believe the RIPE database can be considered "a bonus" anyway. With the greatest respect, most members *categorically* believe that registration is the "only" thing the RIPE-NCC is about and that any non-registration activities are either undertaken as a direct consequence of a requirement to fulfill registration services or 'other'. 'Other' is my ongoing problem. BTW I have never been asked, as a member of about 4 years, to take part in a member survey. Is this another quiet activity 'sneaked' out as a RIPE document once a year ? Peter From pim at bit.nl Wed Dec 4 10:10:35 2002 From: pim at bit.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:10:35 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <005301c29b73$217fe790$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> References: <1aa.d0176ec.2b1f1bfd@aol.com> <005301c29b73$217fe790$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <20021204091034.GA13953@linux.bit.nl> Peter, | With the greatest respect, most members *categorically* believe that | registration is the "only" thing the RIPE-NCC is about and that any | non-registration activities are either undertaken as a direct consequence of | a requirement to fulfill registration services or 'other'. 'Other' is my | ongoing problem. I cannot accept that you say 'most members ..', because from where I'm sitting, there's plenty of voices speaking for training, education, social and formal engineering (eg, meetings). | BTW I have never been asked, as a member of about 4 years, to take part in a | member survey. Is this another quiet activity 'sneaked' out as a RIPE | document once a year ? I hardly think it is sneaked out. You said yourself that you are not able (or was not) to participate in the debates and that you expect the membership at large to act in your best interrest. Now it turns out that you categorically believe that the RIPE NCC should only run registration services. This means that I will not be able to act in your best interrest, because I happen to believe that the RIPE community benefits largely by the 'Other' stuff that the NCC does. I will probably be acting against your best interrest by stimulating 'more than just a registry' behavior. Permit me to fuel your hatred some more: I was recently approached by the RIPE NCC's board to participate in a discussion round with a KPMG research individual and as a matter of fact, we spoke exactly about what 'Other' should be. I voiced my opinion for training, education and spreading of new technologies topdown, such as IPv6 (of which I am an advocate). Suffice to say that not every (and I doubt even 'most') member thinks the same on what the RIPE NCC should be doing. Kind regards, Pim -- __________________ Met vriendelijke groet, /\ ___/ Pim van Pelt /- \ _/ Business Internet Trends BV PBVP1-RIPE /--- \/ __________________ From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Wed Dec 4 10:22:12 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 09:22:12 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: <1aa.d0176ec.2b1f1bfd@aol.com> <005301c29b73$217fe790$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021204091034.GA13953@linux.bit.nl> Message-ID: <006801c29b76$a0cc1250$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> > I cannot accept that you say 'most members ..', because from where I'm > sitting, there's plenty of voices speaking for training, education, social > and formal engineering (eg, meetings). None of those have fallen into my 'other' category. I have stated that training and education are important IMHO. But then, only training and education directly related to registration services I guess. > I hardly think it is sneaked out. You said yourself that you are not able > (or was not) to participate in the debates and that you expect the membership > at large to act in your best interrest. Now it turns out that you > categorically believe that the RIPE NCC should only run registration services. You imply the two statements are related. I dispute that. My belief that RIPE/RIPE-NCC should be primarily and reasonably exclusively about registration services - given the members are paying for that - and has been that way since the mid '90s. > Permit me to fuel your hatred some more: I was recently approached by the Just to clarify. I don't 'hate'. Either socially, commercially or morally. Hate is a sad emotion that is expressed by those unable to have rational thoughts about a subject. Those who put down the resonable concerns of others by shouting loudly may be the ones unable to participate in a rational discussion. > RIPE NCC's board to participate in a discussion round with a KPMG research > individual and as a matter of fact, we spoke exactly about what 'Other' > should be. I voiced my opinion for training, education and spreading of > new technologies topdown, such as IPv6 (of which I am an advocate). Well pre-chosen survey / research subjects skew the results to fit an expectation - this is how most political parties and self-interest groups do it, so why not the existing RIPE management ? You neither suprise me or change my opinion about the current operation of RIPE/RIPE-NCC. > Suffice to say that not every (and I doubt even 'most') member thinks the > same on what the RIPE NCC should be doing. Yes. Correct in every way. The problem in my view, especially in the light of recent exchanges, is that unless all RIPE members are able to express their views then we will never actually know whether there is a consensus. As Jurt said in another e-mail, it appears that certain people appears shocked that some of us are expressing an unapprove view (I have paraphrased and am not quoting). rgds, -- Peter From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Wed Dec 4 10:25:20 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 09:25:20 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] New question Message-ID: <006e01c29b77$115e2030$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Honest question, in order that I am able to better formulate my own views; Can someone please answer these in a clear and non-'Yes Minister' way: 1. What is the difference between RIPE and RIPE-NCC ? 2. What is our membership fee funding (RIPE or RIPE-NCC) ? 3. What other funding does RIPE or RIPE-NCC recieve, other than membership fees (with respect to the answer to the preceeding questions) ? I am not trying to start yet another funding thread, I am doing research - so private replies are welcome. Apart from JR. Peter From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Wed Dec 4 10:49:00 2002 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:49:00 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] New question In-Reply-To: <006e01c29b77$115e2030$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20021204104349.01f014d0@localhost> At 04 12 2002 09:25 +0000, Peter Galbavy wrote: >1. What is the difference between RIPE and RIPE-NCC ? RIPE NCC is a membership association. See http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/ RIPE is a "community", which meets several times a year. It is not incorporated, thus it has no formal mambership. See http://www.ripe.net/ripe/about/index.html >2. What is our membership fee funding (RIPE or RIPE-NCC) ? The membership fee is paid by the RIPE NCC members. It funds the activities of the RIPE NCC, see http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ap2003.html This covers support for RIPE meetings. RIPE meetings are not fully self financing, f.i. staff support is not "charged to" RIPE. >3. What other funding does RIPE or RIPE-NCC recieve, other than membership >fees (with respect to the answer to the preceeding questions) None. regards, Axel From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Wed Dec 4 10:55:18 2002 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:55:18 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <005301c29b73$217fe790$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> References: <1aa.d0176ec.2b1f1bfd@aol.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20021204105044.021922a0@localhost> At 04 12 2002 08:57 +0000, Peter Galbavy wrote: >BTW I have never been asked, as a member of about 4 years, to take part in a >member survey. Is this another quiet activity 'sneaked' out as a RIPE >document once a year ? The Preliminary announcement of the second RIPE NCC survey was sent by me on 12 July 2002. The survey was launched on the RIPE NCC website on 29 August 2002. I also sent an announcement to all members and stakeholders informing them of the survey and encouraging them to participate. On 4 September 2002, prior to RIPE 43 meeting, held in Rhodes 9-13 September 2002, I contacted all registered attendees, informed them of the survey and invited them to participate in an open forum discussion held during the RIPE Meeting. All announcements were sent to: , a list of all members of the RIPE NCC. , a list of members in the RIPE Community. , a list of the RIPE NCC contributors list. Knowledge.com has a subscription to local-ir. Axel From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Wed Dec 4 10:59:45 2002 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:59:45 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] New question In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20021204104349.01f014d0@localhost> References: <006e01c29b77$115e2030$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.2.20021204105548.02051b60@localhost> > >>3. What other funding does RIPE or RIPE-NCC recieve, other than membership >>fees (with respect to the answer to the preceeding questions) > >None. Correction to that: The subscribers to the Test Traffic Project add to the RIPE NCC income. Also the RIPE meeting fees. And of course interest etc. Sorry about that. I meant to say that the RIPE NCC is funded by those using it's services. cheers, Axel From neil at COLT.NET Wed Dec 4 11:22:01 2002 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:22:01 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] New question In-Reply-To: <5.1.1.6.2.20021204104349.01f014d0@localhost> Message-ID: <000101c29b7e$fbd378c0$e75f4ad4@COLT> Axel, > The membership fee is paid by the RIPE NCC members. > It funds the activities of the RIPE NCC, > see http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ap2003.html > This covers support for RIPE meetings. > RIPE meetings are not fully self financing, > f.i. staff support is not "charged to" RIPE. I suggest that this is one of the things that changes. These meetings should be self financing. Regards, Neil. From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Wed Dec 4 11:39:04 2002 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 10:39:04 +0000 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE NCC AGMs (was: the 50% increase discussion) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021204112402.00ae3fc8@lint.cisco.com> References: <38289614-02EE-11D7-B37A-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> <5.1.0.14.2.20021126212647.00ae4d18@localhost> <38289614-02EE-11D7-B37A-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> <5.1.0.14.2.20021204112402.00ae3fc8@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <20021204103904.GA2337@reifchen.karrenberg.net> [Again personal remarks from an old hand. Do not sue the NCC, and do not sue me either ;-) ] I guess I was too terse. Expanding a bit: The number of participants in RIPE NCC AGMs is small because the vast majority of the members does not see the need to participate. If the RIPE NCC was consistently doing things the members do not want, participation would be higher and this would be corrected. I do not consider any of the other reasons suggested here for the low level of participation in AGMs to be valid. There is no obscurity about the meetings, they are every year around the same time and they are announced well. The agenda, all proposals and associated documents are published well in advance. Only someone who has not taken the time to actually read the material can compare it to stuff from the Euro bureaucrazy. Also the content of the most important document, the Activity Plan, is developed with considerable input and interaction with RIPE. RIPE is open to participation from anyone. I agree with Nigel that this set-up opens opportunities for capture by a small and organised group. However the implementation is such that this cannot happen all at once and it has to happen in public. Again, if it is against most member's interests, they will attend the next meeting and put things right. The reason AGMs are not co-scheduled with RIPE meetings is mainly practical and somewhat historical. The AGMs need the audited accounts published well in advance and that schedule does not fit the traditional RIPE meeting schedule. Also the sets of people attending both meetings used to be fairly discjunct, with notable exceptions. I am all in favour of re-evaluating design and implementation: Resurrect the AGM mailing list? Should AGMs be scheduled along RIPE meetings? Maybe they can as we are working with the register accountants to get audited accounts earlier in the year. Are the people attending also attending RIPE meetings? Should we have electronic voting for board elections? Such improvements should be discussed, always keeping in mind stability and trying hard not to break a running system. However I take serious issue with people asserting that the current design and implementation are fundamentally flawed. They are not! Daniel --------- For full details see "A New Structure for the RIPE NCC: De Facto Organisational Rules". http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-161.html. I cannot refrain from pointing out that this is one of the docs explicitly written to be straight and to the point explaining the design principles and intentions, omitting the legalese that is necessary for implementation. Contrary to what some people have suggested here, this is the way we do things at the RIPE NCC. From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Wed Dec 4 12:15:36 2002 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 11:15:36 +0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: References: <20021202171449.GB6526@guest-wv-21.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20021204111536.GA2620@reifchen.karrenberg.net> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 05:58:14AM +0100, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: > you are here implying that the members only react because it's to their > disadvantage.... > What is starting to worry me is the > replies indicating that asking these questions would be improper.... [OK. I go for the red banket, just this once ....;-)] If these are inferences on my contributions here, they hold no water. Asking questions and making concrete and constructive suggestions is not just OK but very good. Of course it would be ideal if this would happen beore the decisions being discussed are taken. Now we just have to take this as input for the next such decision. And I would hope to see concrete suggestions and proposals when the next decision point comes up. Having said that I want to make clear that I take issue with polemics without even taking the time to obtain the information that is available. I take issue with polemics against open and due process without stating where the process has been closed or not proper. I take issue with polemics claiming that "me and everyone else thinks X" without any substantiation of the claim. I take issue with polemics against a widely announced and low threshold open membership survey conducted by a well respected third party without suggesting a better alternative. .... This starts to remind me of ICANN discussions. It would be more constructive if we could hear suggested content for the activity plan 2004. Daniel From gert at space.net Wed Dec 4 15:25:48 2002 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 15:25:48 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <006801c29b76$a0cc1250$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com>; from peter.galbavy@knowtion.net on Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 09:22:12AM -0000 References: <1aa.d0176ec.2b1f1bfd@aol.com> <005301c29b73$217fe790$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021204091034.GA13953@linux.bit.nl> <006801c29b76$a0cc1250$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <20021204152548.G15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 09:22:12AM -0000, Peter Galbavy wrote: > As Jurt said in another e-mail, it appears that certain people appears > shocked that some of us are expressing an unapprove view (I have paraphrased > and am not quoting). Indeed this is something that comes as a surprise to new LIRs - the fact that nothing is cast in stone and that it's perfectly ok to voice your opinion and even ask for *changes*. At least it was a surpise to me when I learned that :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54136 (50279) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From niallm at enigma.ie Wed Dec 4 13:38:16 2002 From: niallm at enigma.ie (Niall Richard Murphy) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 12:38:16 +0000 Subject: [lir-wg] New question In-Reply-To: <000101c29b7e$fbd378c0$e75f4ad4@COLT> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021204104349.01f014d0@localhost> <000101c29b7e$fbd378c0$e75f4ad4@COLT> Message-ID: <20021204123816.GA21859@enigma.ie> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:22:01AM -0000, Neil J. McRae wrote: Hi Neil, > I suggest that this is one of the things that > changes. These meetings should be self financing. We have to be careful here. Suppose the calculations re: self-financing are done on the basis of previous numbers attending meetings. Then the price to attend the meeting would naturally rise. This will result in a drop-off in numbers attending, which will mean the price rises again, etc. Much better to do a phased introduction of this, if it's to be done. Personally speaking I'm in favour of meeting attendance being as cheap as possible "for the little guy" but I can understand the rationale behind not desiring subvention of one class of attendees (or non-attendees) by another. Niall -- Enigma Consulting Limited: Security, UNIX and telecommunications consultants. Address: Floor 2, 45 Dawson Street, Dublin 2, Ireland. 802.11 deployment in Dublin: http://www.enigma.ie/wardrive/ From gert at space.net Wed Dec 4 15:57:13 2002 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 15:57:13 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] New question In-Reply-To: <20021204123816.GA21859@enigma.ie>; from niallm@enigma.ie on Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:38:16PM +0000 References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021204104349.01f014d0@localhost> <000101c29b7e$fbd378c0$e75f4ad4@COLT> <20021204123816.GA21859@enigma.ie> Message-ID: <20021204155713.K15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:38:16PM +0000, Niall Richard Murphy wrote: > > I suggest that this is one of the things that > > changes. These meetings should be self financing. > > We have to be careful here. Suppose the calculations re: self-financing > are done on the basis of previous numbers attending meetings. Then the > price to attend the meeting would naturally rise. This will result in a > drop-off in numbers attending, which will mean the price rises again, etc. > Much better to do a phased introduction of this, if it's to be done. Hmmm. I don't have exact numbers here, but I'd guess that 350/400 EUR per person would finance quite some big chunk of the meeting costs... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54136 (50279) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Wed Dec 4 16:30:21 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 15:30:21 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? References: <1aa.d0176ec.2b1f1bfd@aol.com> <005301c29b73$217fe790$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> <20021204091034.GA13953@linux.bit.nl> <006801c29b76$a0cc1250$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: <013a01c29baa$0ee17f40$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> > As Jurt said in another e-mail, it appears that certain people appears I meant Kurt. Keybrain failure. Peter From o.zaplinski at broadnet-mediascape.de Wed Dec 4 17:22:59 2002 From: o.zaplinski at broadnet-mediascape.de (Olaf Zaplinski) Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:22:59 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] (no subject) References: Message-ID: <3DEE2BE3.902@broadnet-mediascape.de> Matthew Robinson wrote: > Much as I hate to see censorship of the RIPE lists I do feel that Jim has yet > to bring anything useful to the community. He seems to answer questions with > questions. The random postings of links with no context/explanation with them > are really starting to get my back up (a tricky thing to do). > > Perhaps Jim could be asked to place a little more thought and content to his > posts so that we could perhaps take his ideas forward rather than just being > annoyed with them? How about forwarding every little piece of his spam to abuse at ameritech.net? Olaf From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Wed Dec 4 08:02:26 2002 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 08:02:26 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] ref: the 50% increase discussion: reality check, pls. In-Reply-To: <20021202203916.GA2705@reifchen.karrenberg.net> Message-ID: <58B21FBC-0756-11D7-A3F3-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> >> I agree. The cost of going to Amsterdam for one day is not worth it. > > If something was *really wrong* it would be worth it; and people would > go. > This is a feature. > What is a feature? That not having it with the RIPE meetings limit the number or attendants? Daniel, give me one good reason _not_ to have the AGM at the same time as the RIPE meeting. Lower travel costs? Lower costs for the venue? Less work? - kurtis - From hph at online.no Wed Dec 4 20:42:00 2002 From: hph at online.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 20:42:00 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? Message-ID: <3DF31E81@epostleser.online.no> > What is starting to worry me is the >replies indicating that asking these questions would be improper.... While I agree, I think some of the questions that have been raised have been raised as serios critisism of the process in place. While I do think our processes always have room for improvment, I think we would benefit greatly from separation the discussion on - What should the RIPE NCC be doing for its membership, and the right price for this vs - How can we improve the participation in the processes, beeing the AGM as in this case, and even the policy making process in other cases. >If the raised fees in combination with a decreasing number of members >leads to a significant improvement in service I am all for it. That would indeed be excellent ! :-) The good thing now is that we are in an excellent possition do do a tourough discussion on theese items before the 2003 AGM and thus give both the RIPE NCC and the RIPE NCC Association executive board valuable input to both the creation of the 2004 plan and the execution of the 2003 plan. -hph From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Dec 5 05:56:11 2002 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 04:56:11 +0000 Subject: [lir-wg] New question In-Reply-To: <000101c29b7e$fbd378c0$e75f4ad4@COLT> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021204104349.01f014d0@localhost> <000101c29b7e$fbd378c0$e75f4ad4@COLT> Message-ID: <20021205045611.GD2039@reifchen.karrenberg.net> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:22:01AM -0000, Neil J. McRae wrote: > Axel, > > > The membership fee is paid by the RIPE NCC members. > > It funds the activities of the RIPE NCC, > > see http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ap2003.html > > This covers support for RIPE meetings. > > RIPE meetings are not fully self financing, > > f.i. staff support is not "charged to" RIPE. > > I suggest that this is one of the things that > changes. These meetings should be self financing. Would you care explain why? We have had this discussion more than once before. The reason that membership fees are used to support RIPE and thus also support a part of RIPE meetings is that the membership at large benefits from the meetings. RIPE Meetings are neither conferences nor training seminars. They are working meetings providing the open forum that the RIPE NCC needs for developing its policies and directing its work. RIPE needs to keep working for the RIPE NCC to keep working. The established principle is that the attendance fee pays for the direct meeting costs such as the venue and lunches. The staff resources supporting RIPE, and also the meetings, are covered by the membership fees. This works well as the direct costs largely scale by the number of attenders and the staff costs are much more constant. Is there a reason to change this? Daniel From ripe-mailing-lists at ssd.axu.tm Thu Dec 5 08:29:10 2002 From: ripe-mailing-lists at ssd.axu.tm (Aleksi Suhonen) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 09:29:10 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] New question In-Reply-To: <000101c29b7e$fbd378c0$e75f4ad4@COLT> References: <5.1.1.6.2.20021204104349.01f014d0@localhost> Message-ID: <20021205072915.49FCD1A321@tikka.axu.tm> Hello, Quote from (lost in the requote): } > This covers support for RIPE meetings. } > RIPE meetings are not fully self financing, } > f.i. staff support is not "charged to" RIPE. Quote from "Neil J. McRae": } I suggest that this is one of the things that } changes. These meetings should be self financing. I'm not yet sure that this would be a good idea. If flying to RIPE meetings is already a bit too expensive for many of the smaller LIRs, I don't think we'll see much of them anymore if there is going to be an entrance fee as well. Furthermore, if the AGM will be a part of one RIPE meeting per year, wouldn't this create a plutocracy, i.e. rule by those that can afford to pay a bit more? -- Aleksi Suhonen From k13 at nikhef.nl Thu Dec 5 10:08:47 2002 From: k13 at nikhef.nl (Rob Blokzijl) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:08:47 +0100 (MET) Subject: [lir-wg] New question In-Reply-To: <20021205072915.49FCD1A321@tikka.axu.tm> Message-ID: Alexsi, On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Aleksi Suhonen wrote: > > If flying to RIPE meetings is already a bit too expensive > for many of the smaller LIRs, I don't think we'll see much of > them anymore if there is going to be an entrance fee as well. > Fact: since RIPE26 there has been a registration fee for RIPE meetings. This fee covers the basic costs of the meetings. Rob From neil at COLT.NET Thu Dec 5 10:09:37 2002 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:09:37 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] New question In-Reply-To: <20021205045611.GD2039@reifchen.karrenberg.net> Message-ID: <00a001c29c3e$0983c050$e75f4ad4@COLT> Daniel, > Would you care explain why? For the simple reason to improve cost control. If the meetings were self financing, in my view, there would be much better management of the costs of the meeting. Also, I don't see why organisations should subsidise these meetings when they have no real way to participate remotely. The RIPE meetings have over grown to a fairly rediculous size [5 days!] and I don't see any additional benefits because of this, had the attendees had to finance this perhaps the meeting would not have grown to the size it has and the focus would be much sharper. Because of the structure of IP addressing etc the RIPE NCC has a responsibility to its members to ensure good value for money and to focus on things that are relevant to the RIPE NCC. I sense a large amount of "mission creep" where the RIPE has become involved in things that are not really relevant to the RIPE NCC or the reason why many of the members joined, however the members are expected to fund it - where does it stop? I'm not arguing that the RIPE and the RIPE NCC do good work, I'm arguing for more accountability. The RIPE NCC meeting for example needs at most to be two days IMO and for most members attending a two day meeting to cover the specific RIPE NCC functions is far more justifiable than a 5 day meeting. Regards, Neil. From gert at space.net Thu Dec 5 10:21:15 2002 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:21:15 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] New question In-Reply-To: <00a001c29c3e$0983c050$e75f4ad4@COLT>; from neil@COLT.NET on Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:09:37AM -0000 References: <20021205045611.GD2039@reifchen.karrenberg.net> <00a001c29c3e$0983c050$e75f4ad4@COLT> Message-ID: <20021205102115.B15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:09:37AM -0000, Neil J. McRae wrote: > I'm not arguing that the RIPE and the RIPE NCC do good work, I'm > arguing for more accountability. The RIPE NCC meeting for example > needs at most to be two days IMO and for most members attending > a two day meeting to cover the specific RIPE NCC functions is far > more justifiable than a 5 day meeting. I agree that 5 days is too much - but 2 days isn't sufficient either. For me, one of the most important aspects of the meetings is "meet people face-to-face" - and this needs time. If you don't count the EOF, the meeting actually only has 3 days (half tuesday, full wednesday+thursday, half friday)... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54136 (50279) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From neil at COLT.NET Thu Dec 5 10:26:23 2002 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:26:23 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE NCC AGMs (was: the 50% increase discussion) In-Reply-To: <20021204103904.GA2337@reifchen.karrenberg.net> Message-ID: <00a901c29c40$60d7a360$e75f4ad4@COLT> Daniel, You could move one of the RIPE meetings to the time that the AGM is, its really not rocket science! I strongly disagree with your assumption on the attendance being low and its concerning that you have a view that "if nobody is complaining then things must be ok". That is a very worrying statement. Regards, Neil. From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Dec 5 10:36:04 2002 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net ('Daniel Karrenberg') Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:36:04 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] New question In-Reply-To: <00a001c29c3e$0983c050$e75f4ad4@COLT> References: <20021205045611.GD2039@reifchen.karrenberg.net> <00a001c29c3e$0983c050$e75f4ad4@COLT> Message-ID: <20021205093604.GA2676@reifchen-wave.karrenberg.net> I'll leave discussion of duration and format of the meetings to Rob. The costs directly related to the length of the meeting such as rent of the venue and catering are already recovered from the attenders via the meeting fees. Personally I doubt whether the indirect support costs for RIPE can be influenced by making the meetings shorter. If you want to address "mission creep" within RIPE, address this within RIPE and make suggestions as to what things RIPE should cease doing. RIPE has a chair and a discussion list. If you want to address "mission creep" within the RIPE NCC, address this when the activity plan is discussed and make suggestions which activities should be discontinued. This way a discussion with those members in favour of the activities can occur. Daniel From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Dec 5 10:50:24 2002 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net ('Daniel Karrenberg') Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 10:50:24 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE NCC AGMs (was: the 50% increase discussion) In-Reply-To: <00a901c29c40$60d7a360$e75f4ad4@COLT> References: <20021204103904.GA2337@reifchen.karrenberg.net> <00a901c29c40$60d7a360$e75f4ad4@COLT> Message-ID: <20021205095024.GA3075@reifchen-wave.karrenberg.net> On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 09:26:23AM -0000, Neil J. McRae wrote: > Daniel, > You could move one of the RIPE meetings to the time that the AGM > is, its really not rocket science! Moving the RIPE meeting dates around has been suggested multiple times and has always met considerable resistance from the community. > I strongly disagree with your assumption on the attendance being low and > its concerning that you have a view that "if nobody is complaining then > things must be ok". That is a very worrying statement. Then we simply disagree on this point. I have come to my view on this after long experience. See my message to Hans-Petter on this list a couple of months ago for a more detailed reasoning. Daniel From gert at space.net Thu Dec 5 11:07:49 2002 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:07:49 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: [db-wg] Proposal for automated clean-up of references by name In-Reply-To: <20021205094253.GC31835@x47.ripe.net>; from engin@ripe.net on Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:42:53AM +0100 References: <20021205094253.GC31835@x47.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20021205110749.C15927@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:42:53AM +0100, Engin Gunduz wrote: > We have prepared a proposal to automatically clean-up references > by name and other invalid references in RIPE Whois Database. I like the proposal. Go ahead! (Yes, it will potentially create lots of "ugly looking" objects - but the situation right now, where you're not able to delete person objects because they are locked by a reference-by-name, is much worse) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 54136 (50279) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From zsako at banknet.net Thu Dec 5 11:51:45 2002 From: zsako at banknet.net (Janos Zsako) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:51:45 +0100 (MET) Subject: [lir-wg] Re: [db-wg] Proposal for automated clean-up of references by name Message-ID: <200212051051.LAA28707@banknet.banknet.net> > From db-wg-admin at ripe.net Thu Dec 5 11:08:46 2002 > From: Gert Doering > On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:42:53AM +0100, Engin Gunduz wrote: > > We have prepared a proposal to automatically clean-up references > > by name and other invalid references in RIPE Whois Database. > > I like the proposal. Go ahead! Yes, I agree too. > (Yes, it will potentially create lots of "ugly looking" objects - but > the situation right now, where you're not able to delete person objects > because they are locked by a reference-by-name, is much worse) I have one question though: who will be the maintainer of the new "ugly" object created? I have the feeling it could/should be the maintainer of the object that will reference it. Janos From engin at ripe.net Thu Dec 5 13:24:31 2002 From: engin at ripe.net (Engin Gunduz) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:24:31 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: [db-wg] Proposal for automated clean-up of references by name In-Reply-To: <200212051051.LAA28707@banknet.banknet.net> References: <200212051051.LAA28707@banknet.banknet.net> Message-ID: <20021205122431.GG31835@x47.ripe.net> Hi Janos, On 2002-12-05 11:51:45 +0100, Janos Zsako wrote: > > From db-wg-admin at ripe.net Thu Dec 5 11:08:46 2002 > > From: Gert Doering > > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:42:53AM +0100, Engin Gunduz wrote: > > > We have prepared a proposal to automatically clean-up references > > > by name and other invalid references in RIPE Whois Database. > > > > I like the proposal. Go ahead! > > Yes, I agree too. > > > (Yes, it will potentially create lots of "ugly looking" objects - but > > the situation right now, where you're not able to delete person objects > > because they are locked by a reference-by-name, is much worse) > > I have one question though: who will be the maintainer of the new > "ugly" object created? I have the feeling it could/should be the > maintainer of the object that will reference it. That would make sense, when creating person objects, I think. However, thinking about role objects that will be created: If we put the once-inconsistent object's maintainer on it, the users that happen to have the referenced name but have no relation to the inconsistent object will not be able to delete their NIC handle from the newly created role object. They will need to contact the owners of once-inconsistent object, however chances are that they will be irresponsive (otherwise they would have updated their inconsistent objects long ago, wouldn't they ;) So I'd propose putting mntners of relevant inconsistent object in the new person object, but leaving the new role objects unmaintained. What do you think? (as a data point: in the extreme case, one role object will have references to 171 person objects.) Best regards, -- Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Database Group > > Janos From zsako at banknet.net Thu Dec 5 13:58:19 2002 From: zsako at banknet.net (Janos Zsako) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 13:58:19 +0100 (MET) Subject: [lir-wg] Re: [db-wg] Proposal for automated clean-up of references by name Message-ID: <200212051258.NAA29049@banknet.banknet.net> > From engin at ripe.net Thu Dec 5 13:25:05 2002 Dear Engin, > > I have one question though: who will be the maintainer of the new > > "ugly" object created? I have the feeling it could/should be the > > maintainer of the object that will reference it. > > That would make sense, when creating person objects, I think. > However, thinking about role objects that will be created: > If we put the once-inconsistent object's maintainer on it, > the users that happen to have the referenced name but have no relation > to the inconsistent object will not be able to delete their > NIC handle from the newly created role object. They will need > to contact the owners of once-inconsistent object, however chances > are that they will be irresponsive (otherwise they would > have updated their inconsistent objects long ago, wouldn't they ;) > > So I'd propose putting mntners of relevant inconsistent object > in the new person object, but leaving the new role objects > unmaintained. What do you think? Yes, this makes much more sense, indeed. I have a new question, though (I quote from the original proposal): > From db-wg-admin at ripe.net Thu Dec 5 10:43:33 2002 > From: Engin Gunduz > 1. Objects that refer to a person or role object by name. > a. There is only one object with this name. > Solution: Update the inconsistent object so that it > will contain the NIC handle instead of the name. Add > appropriate remarks and changed attributes to the object > to explain the reason for update. In case the referring object is maintained (by a probably unresponsive maintainer, as you well suggested above) and the referred person happens not to be related to the referring object (i.e. the program inferred incorrectly the relationship), then the owner/maintainer of the object will not be able to delete the person object once it becomes unused. Would it not be advisable then to act as in case 1.c. (with a single person/role object being referenced by the newly created role object)? In other words, it may be advisable to refine 1.a. by the following: 1.a.1. If the referring object is maintained, and the maintainer is different from the maintainer of the object with the referred name, then proceed as in 1.c. (If the latter object is not maintained, then the maintainers are by definition different.) 1.a.2. If the referring object is unmaintained or both objects are maintained by the same maintainer, then proceed as previously described. This procedure may create superfluous role objects, but I would think the chances are low for this to happen and it is a price worth paying. What do you think? Best regards, Janos From bruce.campbell at ripe.net Thu Dec 5 17:22:05 2002 From: bruce.campbell at ripe.net (Bruce Campbell) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:22:05 +0100 (CET) Subject: [lir-wg] New question In-Reply-To: <20021205072915.49FCD1A321@tikka.axu.tm> Message-ID: On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Aleksi Suhonen wrote: > If flying to RIPE meetings is already a bit too expensive > for many of the smaller LIRs, I don't think we'll see much of > them anymore if there is going to be an entrance fee as well. > > Furthermore, if the AGM will be a part of one RIPE meeting > per year, wouldn't this create a plutocracy, i.e. rule by > those that can afford to pay a bit more? urm, no. I am interpreting the suggestions for the two to be held together as: The RIPE NCC AGM should be held immediately before or after the RIPE Meeting, utilising the same venue[1] and support infrastructure[2]. and that: The existing RIPE Meeting registration fee should not include the RIPE NCC AGM. ( so if you're just attending the RIPE NCC AGM, you are not paying the RIPE Meeting registration fee. ) For people that attend both the RIPE Meeting and RIPE NCC AGM, this removes one trip per year, at the cost of a slightly longer stay in Amsterdam. For people that attend only one or the other, this does not change their flight or registration requirements. Kind regards, -- Bruce Campbell RIPE Systems/Network Engineer NCC www.ripe.net - PGP562C8B1B Operations/Security [1] Obviously, this would tie the given RIPE Meeting to Amsterdam. [2] Logistically, a long meeting is easier for the NCC to support, than multiple small meetings. From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Thu Dec 5 17:35:39 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 16:35:39 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] New question References: Message-ID: <00e201c29c7c$58858ba0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> > For people that attend both the RIPE Meeting and RIPE NCC AGM, this > removes one trip per year, at the cost of a slightly longer stay in > Amsterdam. For people that attend only one or the other, this does not > change their flight or registration requirements. And therefore as a consequence puts more people near the AGM so that participation by members is wider... hooray. Win/win. Peter From leo at ripe.net Thu Dec 5 18:27:02 2002 From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:27:02 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Announcement: IPv4 Early Registration Transfer Test Message-ID: <20021205172702.GA11883@ripe.net> Dear Collegues, Following from the work of the ERX Task Force in October, the four RIRs will begin a test transfer on Monday, 9 December 2002. The objective of the test transfer is to estimate time and resources needed to carry out the whole project as well as further elaborate procedures and identify issues. 43 networks from one range (129.0.0.0/8) will be transferred to the RIPE Database during this test phase according to the timeline below. A detailed list of the networks can be found at: Since this is an ARIN majority /8, the transfer will be of networks within the /8, rather than the /8 itself. Contacts for networks to be transferred to the RIPE Database will be notified by e-mail on 11 December 2002. Each network will use a single ticket number. Please do not remove the ticket number from the Subject header when replying to the e-mail. If you have questions regarding the process, please contact . Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services The transfer process is as below: APPROACH The plan is to perform the transfer by /8. For each /8 the following tasks have to be performed: 1. Conflicts (contacts and description) to be resolved 2. Records and associated documentation to be transferred 3. Reverse delegation to be set up CONFLICTS The following types of conflicts have been identified: C1. Record exists in ARIN Database only. There is no exact matching (range wise) record in the RIPE Databas Proposal: to update internal documentation, create the record in the RIPE Database and protect with a unique generated maintainer. The inetnum will be created with a status attribute value of "EARLY-REGISTRATION"(*) C2. Range matches records in both ARIN and RIPE Databases. Meaning that contacts and description may be different. Most cases indicate out of date information in one of the Databases, not real conflicts or attempts to hijack address space. What happened in most cases is that people started maintaining their allocation or assignement in the RIPE Database, especially since RIPE Database started to support the Routing Registry. Proposal: Notify the contacts and give them time to reach consensus. After the deadline merge the records whose contacts have not responded. Database objects will not be locked by either ARIN or the RIPE NCC during the transfer process. The RIPE NCC will not change the maintainer on objects following the transfer process. C3.0 Record exists in the RIPE DB only. C3.1. One reason why such situation may exist is that this is a valid RIPE NCC allocation. Proposal: To preserve information in the RIPE DB. The existing value of the status attribute will be preserved. If the existing inetnum object does not have a status attribute a status attribute with a value of "EARLY-REGISTRATION"(*) will be inserted. C3.2 Another situation is that the registration data are simply garbage. Proposal: Notify contacts and give them time to explain the situation. Where no explanation is forthcoming or the contacts explain that the registrations are 'garbage' the records will be deleted. (*) The status of "EARLY-REGISTRATION"(*) is a special value proposed for the ERX networks. It has no policy implications and objects with this status can be created only by the Database Administration. PROCEDURE for a /8 1. Pre transfer 1.1 Initial dump is prepared for transfer by ARIN 1.2 Announcement is sent to ARIN's contacts 1.3 Reverse delegation domain space is cleaned up in the RIPE Database (reverse domain objects for which no delegation was provided are deleted) 2. Transfer 2.1 Final dump is prepared by ARIN 2.2 C1 group: database records are imported, documentation is updated, contacts are notified 2.3 C2 group: contacts (ARIN+RIPE) are asked to reach consensus. 2.4 C3.2 group: contacts are notified of possible deletion. 3. Conflict resolution 3.1 C2 group: non responding records are merged but not locked. 3.2 C3.2 group: records without good reasons are deleted. TIMELINE 1 Happens on 9 December 2002 2 Happens on day 10 January and only takes 1 day. At this point we are done with this /8 from ARIN's point of view. 3 May continue after 10 January if necessary From engin at ripe.net Fri Dec 6 10:10:53 2002 From: engin at ripe.net (Engin Gunduz) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 10:10:53 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: [db-wg] Proposal for automated clean-up of references by name In-Reply-To: <200212051258.NAA29049@banknet.banknet.net> References: <200212051258.NAA29049@banknet.banknet.net> Message-ID: <20021206091053.GA25623@x47.ripe.net> Hi Janos, On 2002-12-05 13:58:19 +0100, Janos Zsako wrote: [...] > I have a new question, though (I quote from the original proposal): > > > From db-wg-admin at ripe.net Thu Dec 5 10:43:33 2002 > > From: Engin Gunduz > > > 1. Objects that refer to a person or role object by name. > > a. There is only one object with this name. > > Solution: Update the inconsistent object so that it > > will contain the NIC handle instead of the name. Add > > appropriate remarks and changed attributes to the object > > to explain the reason for update. > > In case the referring object is maintained (by a probably unresponsive > maintainer, as you well suggested above) and the referred person happens > not to be related to the referring object (i.e. the program inferred > incorrectly the relationship), then the owner/maintainer of the object > will not be able to delete the person object once it becomes unused. > Would it not be advisable then to act as in case 1.c. (with a single > person/role object being referenced by the newly created role object)? > > In other words, it may be advisable to refine 1.a. by the following: > > 1.a.1. If the referring object is maintained, and the maintainer is > different from the maintainer of the object with the referred name, > then proceed as in 1.c. (If the latter object is not maintained, then > the maintainers are by definition different.) > > 1.a.2. If the referring object is unmaintained or both objects are > maintained by the same maintainer, then proceed as previously described. > > This procedure may create superfluous role objects, but I would think > the chances are low for this to happen and it is a price worth paying. The upper limit for the number of objects we will create in this process is around 2000. Considering that there are ~800,000 person objects (of which ~280,000 are not referenced) 2000 is not a big number. > What do you think? I will incorporate these into the proposal, along with other possible changes, and publish it before December 20th. Thanks for feedback... Best regards, -- Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC Database Group > > Best regards, > Janos From pfs at cisco.com Fri Dec 6 07:15:28 2002 From: pfs at cisco.com (Philip Smith) Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 16:15:28 +1000 Subject: [lir-wg] New question In-Reply-To: <00e201c29c7c$58858ba0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021206160655.05da3fa8@lint.cisco.com> At 16:35 05/12/2002 +0000, Peter Galbavy wrote: > > For people that attend both the RIPE Meeting and RIPE NCC AGM, this > > removes one trip per year, at the cost of a slightly longer stay in > > Amsterdam. For people that attend only one or the other, this does not > > change their flight or registration requirements. > >And therefore as a consequence puts more people near the AGM so that >participation by members is wider... hooray. Win/win. Exactly. I say we should at least try it. If only 10 members turn up to the AGM when it is held on the Friday after the RIPE meeting, then we can say "ooops, we were wrong". But as ARIN found out last month with NANOG, co-locating meetings really does help the attendance. And everyone wins. :-) May I propose to the board (who hopefully are all on this mailing list) that they suggest combining the RIPE meeting with the RIPE NCC AGM at the September 2003 event? That only means moving the AGM date forward by a month, so hopefully doesn't involve the NCC Secretariat in too much more stress in preparing for the AGM. (And which might make the format of Monday: EOF, Tuesday/Wednesday: WG meetings, Thursday: Open Meeting, Friday: NCC AGM?) philip -- From sabri at cluecentral.net Sat Dec 7 00:56:57 2002 From: sabri at cluecentral.net (Sabri Berisha) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 00:56:57 +0100 (CET) Subject: [lir-wg] New question In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021206160655.05da3fa8@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <20021207005518.Y11499-100000@doos.cluecentral.net> On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Philip Smith wrote: Hi all, > May I propose to the board (who hopefully are all on this mailing list) > that they suggest combining the RIPE meeting with the RIPE NCC AGM at the > September 2003 event? That only means moving the AGM date forward by a > month, so hopefully doesn't involve the NCC Secretariat in too much more > stress in preparing for the AGM. (And which might make the format of > Monday: EOF, Tuesday/Wednesday: WG meetings, Thursday: Open Meeting, > Friday: NCC AGM?) Please do keep in mind that the AMS-IX has their tech-meetings during RIPE-meetings in Amsterdam as well (on fridays). Scheduling AGM's at the same time as AMS-IX meeetings is could be undesirable. -- Sabri Berisha www.cluecentral.net "I route, therefore you are" From randy at psg.com Sun Dec 8 23:51:12 2002 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 14:51:12 -0800 Subject: [lir-wg] New question References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021206160655.05da3fa8@lint.cisco.com> <20021207005518.Y11499-100000@doos.cluecentral.net> Message-ID: > Please do keep in mind that the AMS-IX has their tech-meetings > during RIPE-meetings in Amsterdam as well (on fridays). > Scheduling AGM's at the same time as AMS-IX meeetings is could be > undesirable. and, of course, the ams-ix meeting is more important to the entire ripe community and should have scheduling priority? randy From fm at st-kilda.org Sun Dec 8 23:58:04 2002 From: fm at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 22:58:04 +0000 Subject: [lir-wg] New question In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20021206160655.05da3fa8@lint.cisco.com> <20021207005518.Y11499-100000@doos.cluecentral.net> Message-ID: <1172734202-758011@espace.net> At 14:51 -0800 8/12/02, Randy Bush wrote: >> Scheduling AGM's at the same time as AMS-IX meeetings is could be >> undesirable. > >and, of course, the ams-ix meeting is more important to the entire >ripe community and should have scheduling priority? Randy - there was a "could be" in there - that means it is just being raised as an issue. Can we keep the "Bernstein" type behaviour off this list perhaps? Thanks f From arien.vijn at ams-ix.net Mon Dec 9 00:15:59 2002 From: arien.vijn at ams-ix.net (Arien Vijn) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 00:15:59 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] New question In-Reply-To: <20021207005518.Y11499-100000@doos.cluecentral.net> Message-ID: On 07-12-2002 0:56AM, "Sabri Berisha" wrote: >> May I propose to the board (who hopefully are all on this mailing list) >> that they suggest combining the RIPE meeting with the RIPE NCC AGM at the >> September 2003 event? That only means moving the AGM date forward by a >> month, so hopefully doesn't involve the NCC Secretariat in too much more >> stress in preparing for the AGM. (And which might make the format of >> Monday: EOF, Tuesday/Wednesday: WG meetings, Thursday: Open Meeting, >> Friday: NCC AGM?) > > Please do keep in mind that the AMS-IX has their tech-meetings during > RIPE-meetings in Amsterdam as well (on fridays). Scheduling AGM's at the > same time as AMS-IX meeetings is could be undesirable. Nothing is planned yet. I don't think that this will be an issue. In September, both AMS-IX tech- and general meetings will be scheduled after each other on the same day, as we did last time. Surely we will not plan this on the very same day as the NCC AGM. BTW Next AMS-IX tech-meeting will be on Friday January 31. That is in the week of the RIPE meeting but *not* in Hotel Krasnapolsky as usual. This time it will be held at the WCW (same place as the IPv6 Awareness Day). Arien -- Arien Vijn Amsterdam Internet Exchange http://www.ams-ix.net From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Fri Dec 6 16:55:53 2002 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 16:55:53 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <1aa.d0176ec.2b1f1bfd@aol.com> Message-ID: <32DBB9FA-0933-11D7-A3F3-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> On onsdag, dec 4, 2002, at 09:51 Europe/Stockholm, Bovio at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 12/4/02 5:58:30 AM Romance Standard Time, > kurtis at kurtis.pp.se writes: > > Kurtis, > > Ok, so for next year we will see a staff reduction or a > "re-prioritistion"? > > > > As I wrote earlier we expect the survey to tell us what the membership > at large expects the RIPE-NCC to do. If the members indicate that they > are only intrested in core activities some restructuring will be > required. I personally doubt that this will be the case and I do not > think a staff reduction will be needed. Ok. Notice that this was actually a question on which way you think it will go. I don't understand how you could get "continuing as today" and "same fees and fee structure" to work together. > I am now playing the devils advocate so don't take this literal - the > RIPE NCCs number one focus is to provide adequate registration > services. Anything else is pure bonus. > > > > The RIPE-NCC was never meant to be "only" about registration services. > At any rate I do not believe the RIPE database can be considered? "a > bonus" anyway. > I agree with you on the "not only" registration services - but at some point we need to ask us what the NCC should focus on. I can see a number of side activities that will prove useful, but still the most useful services are the registration services, and what do we do if these do not function well? I have a PI address space form that I sent it and that apparently had a problem. That was (I think)I two months ago. Still no reply from the NCC. While registering the new LIR I had a problem with the invoicing and tried to get in contact with RIPE NCCs billing group, I was several times on the phone told that none of them had come to the office at times when I would have expected everyone to be at work since long back. I was told there was a week waiting queue on billing issues. I don't want to point fingers, at least this is not my intention - and there might be very valid reasons for everything. But here lays a part of the problem. It's very hard to have a view of the work done by the NCC without this being indirectly seen as criticism of particular persons of the NCC. But I have agreed with Hans-Petter to try and make a presentation for the next LIR-WG of my experiences and what I think, so I will and try to be quite until then, - kurtis - From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Fri Dec 6 17:02:51 2002 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 17:02:51 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <20021204091034.GA13953@linux.bit.nl> Message-ID: <2C2EEF42-0934-11D7-A3F3-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> > Permit me to fuel your hatred some more: I was recently approached by > the > RIPE NCC's board to participate in a discussion round with a KPMG > research > individual and as a matter of fact, we spoke exactly about what 'Other' > should be. I voiced my opinion for training, education and spreading of > new technologies topdown, such as IPv6 (of which I am an advocate). > I would be very careful to have the NCC work on spreading new technology. Be it streaming toasters, DNS servers or IPv6. If the NCC starts getting viewed as doing lobbying for a specific cause, it will loose a lot of it's value as an independent organization. - kurtis - From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Fri Dec 6 16:59:21 2002 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 16:59:21 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <005301c29b73$217fe790$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> Message-ID: > BTW I have never been asked, as a member of about 4 years, to take > part in a > member survey. Is this another quiet activity 'sneaked' out as a RIPE > document once a year ? I assume that as I go down my mailbox this will have been said several times, but here it goes : I have drowned in emails on this survey, also on this list. You have been told. I think that doing a survey is a good thing. Having someone going around Europe was perhaps not as valuable. I don't know. I am waiting with excitement on the report of the outcome.....and I hope that is published BEFORE the next RIPE meeting and not as a presentation during it... - kurtis - From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Fri Dec 6 17:34:14 2002 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 17:34:14 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE NCC AGMs (was: the 50% increase discussion) In-Reply-To: <20021204103904.GA2337@reifchen.karrenberg.net> Message-ID: <8E9CC570-0938-11D7-A3F3-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> > Daniel, I am trying to sue you here BUT, > The number of participants in RIPE NCC AGMs is small because the vast > majority of the members does not see the need to participate. If the I am sorry? Do you think that the african LIRs under RIPE think it's worth the money to come for one day to the AGM? Or perhaps they don't count? do you think the small or corporate think it's worth the money? Or maybe we could just impose a rule that organizations with a turn-over or less that X EUR a year can't vote. Or LIRs not in NL can't vote? I have been told of several occasions when the KPNQwest attendent to the AGM have the majority of the vote. Alone. I am starting to feel sorry we didn't execute the voting power. > RIPE NCC was consistently doing things the members do not want, > participation would be higher and this would be corrected. I am sorry? Are you arguing that the NCC should not do what the members want? Coming from one of the original founders of RIPE NCC and a well respected member, must say you are starting to look pretty odd in my book. Perhaps we need a good bar and some time at the next RIPE meeting, but for now I must say I disagree with everything you have said. It is contra-productive for the NCC as well as for your self. - kurtis - From crain at icann.org Mon Dec 9 09:21:34 2002 From: crain at icann.org (John L Crain) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 00:21:34 -0800 Subject: [lir-wg] RIPE NCC AGMs (was: the 50% increase discussion) In-Reply-To: <8E9CC570-0938-11D7-A3F3-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> References: <8E9CC570-0938-11D7-A3F3-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> Message-ID: <1692667806.20021209002134@icann.org> Hi Kurt, There was an "If the" in front of this. Unfortunate line break in the way the mail got cut. So it reads: If the >> RIPE NCC was consistently doing things the members do not want, >> participation would be higher and this would be corrected. KEL> I am sorry? Are you arguing that the NCC should not do what the members KEL> want? I think we both know that this is not something DFK would ever say. I'm not a member of the NCC so I'll just follow the conversation with a private interest. Having been involved as an NCC staff member in the past it's always interesting to follow the discussions. All these meetings and still people revert to the bar for discussions:) JC From sabri at cluecentral.net Mon Dec 9 11:42:20 2002 From: sabri at cluecentral.net (Sabri Berisha) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:42:20 +0100 (CET) Subject: [lir-wg] New question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20021209113947.X83904-100000@doos.cluecentral.net> On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Randy Bush wrote: Hi, > > Please do keep in mind that the AMS-IX has their tech-meetings > > during RIPE-meetings in Amsterdam as well (on fridays). > > Scheduling AGM's at the same time as AMS-IX meeetings is could be > > undesirable. > > and, of course, the ams-ix meeting is more important to the entire > ripe community and should have scheduling priority? Well you can have it your way. Let me rephrase then: Scheduling AMS-IX meetings AGM's at the same time as AGM's could be undesirable. All I'm trying to point out is that we don't want a conflict in schedulings so people would be forced to choose. I understand that for you the AMS-IX is of no importance, but for a number of members in the RIPE region, it is. -- Sabri Berisha www.cluecentral.net "I route, therefore you are" From neil at COLT.NET Mon Dec 9 12:43:17 2002 From: neil at COLT.NET (Neil J. McRae) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:43:17 -0000 Subject: [lir-wg] New question In-Reply-To: <20021209113947.X83904-100000@doos.cluecentral.net> Message-ID: <003301c29f78$2a2fe8f0$e75f4ad4@COLT> Sabri, > Well you can have it your way. Let me rephrase then: > > Scheduling AMS-IX meetings AGM's at the same time as AGM's > could be undesirable. > > All I'm trying to point out is that we don't want a conflict > in schedulings so people would be forced to choose. I > understand that for you the AMS-IX is of no importance, but > for a number of members in the RIPE region, it is. The planning of the AMS-IX meeting should not affect the planning of the RIPE meeting and vice versa, and the reality is, that sometimes you have to change to what you want to attend to what you +need+ to attend. Regards, Neil. From randy at psg.com Mon Dec 9 18:47:03 2002 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 09:47:03 -0800 Subject: [lir-wg] New question References: <20021209113947.X83904-100000@doos.cluecentral.net> Message-ID: > Scheduling AMS-IX meetings AGM's at the same time as AGM's could be > undesirable. yup > I understand that for you the AMS-IX is of no importance your understanding is not correct. i, like most folk, just have my priorities. randy From hpholen at tiscali.no Thu Dec 12 22:37:00 2002 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 22:37:00 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Acceptable use policy ? Message-ID: <167079218.1039732620@cq> Dear lir-wg, as a discussion point for the next working group meeting, and perhaps as a desicion to be made by the RIPE plenary, if there is a feeling that a change is needed. Up until recently I have been of the opinion that the lir-wg list should be open. I realise this is somewhat naive as I personally clearly don't want to see spam on this list. Currently there is an AUP on http://www.ripe.net/ripe/about/maillists.html All working group mailing lists are open for subscribing. Postings are accepted only from subscribed members, but the lists may only be used for purposes covered by the charter of each RIPE Working Group. Unsolicited Bulk E-mail ("spam") is never acceptable. The RIPE NCC will, at its own discretion, remove addresses likely to lead to misuse of any list or lists, and may take further action against individuals and service providers involved. The question then is: is this wording acceptable ? Do we need a more detailed charter like ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3005.txt What should the procedures be to handle a breach to this policy ? Personally I do not see my role as chair of the lir-wg as editor of the content of this list, but recently there was an expectation that the chair should call act on such a matter. Opinions from the WG ? -hph From hpholen at tiscali.no Thu Dec 12 22:42:23 2002 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 22:42:23 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: [lir-wg]Election of chairs to the lir-wg - call for nominations In-Reply-To: <2453109.1035409361@[192.168.0.128]> References: <2453109.1035409361@[192.168.0.128]> Message-ID: <167401750.1039732943@cq> Dear wg, I have seen no reactions to this posting. I would think it should be fairly important to the wg to figure out: 1) Who should chair this wg in the future ? 2) Are the current chairs accepting renomination ? (yes I am if you still want me :-) 3) Does the wg want to have 1 chair and 2 co chairs ? -hph --On 23. oktober 2002 21:42 +0200 Hans Petter Holen wrote: > Dear wg, > As mentioned at the last wg-meeting, one of the co-chairs, James > Alderidge, has started working for the RIPE NCC, and as one of the > unwritten rules of the LIR-wg is that it should be chaired by non RIPE > NCC staff, James is no longer serving as a co-chair of this wg. > > Last time we had an election the wg deceided that one chair and two > co-chairs was suitable. As I find it good practice to hold an open > election from time to time I propose that we do an election for all 3 > chairs. > > I would like to propose to the WG that we do a open nomination process on > the lir-wg list up until lets say one month before the next RIPE meeting > (27 to 31 January 2003) for chair and two co-chairs and that we do the > chair election at the next wg meeting in Amsterdam. > > This should give the wg a good opportunity to discuss potential > candidates. > > Best Regards, > Hans Petter Holen > lir-wg chair. From nigel at titley.com Fri Dec 13 00:42:22 2002 From: nigel at titley.com (Nigel Titley) Date: 12 Dec 2002 23:42:22 +0000 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: [lir-wg]Election of chairs to the lir-wg - call for nominations In-Reply-To: <167401750.1039732943@cq> References: <2453109.1035409361@[192.168.0.128]> <167401750.1039732943@cq> Message-ID: <1039736543.30908.9.camel@woden> On Thu, 2002-12-12 at 21:42, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > Dear wg, > I have seen no reactions to this posting. > > I would think it should be fairly important to the wg to figure out: > > 1) Who should chair this wg in the future ? At the risk of being recursive, the WG chair > 2) Are the current chairs accepting renomination ? (yes I am if you still > want me :-) I for one would be extremely pleased to have HPH continue. He has done a fine job. > 3) Does the wg want to have 1 chair and 2 co chairs ? Well, at least one chair and one co chair, but if co-chairs prove unreliable, then its helpful to have a spare :-) > -hph > > --On 23. oktober 2002 21:42 +0200 Hans Petter Holen > wrote: > > > Dear wg, > > As mentioned at the last wg-meeting, one of the co-chairs, James > > Alderidge, has started working for the RIPE NCC, and as one of the > > unwritten rules of the LIR-wg is that it should be chaired by non RIPE > > NCC staff, James is no longer serving as a co-chair of this wg. > > > > Last time we had an election the wg deceided that one chair and two > > co-chairs was suitable. As I find it good practice to hold an open > > election from time to time I propose that we do an election for all 3 > > chairs. > > > > I would like to propose to the WG that we do a open nomination process on > > the lir-wg list up until lets say one month before the next RIPE meeting > > (27 to 31 January 2003) for chair and two co-chairs and that we do the > > chair election at the next wg meeting in Amsterdam. > > > > This should give the wg a good opportunity to discuss potential > > candidates. > > > > Best Regards, > > Hans Petter Holen > > lir-wg chair. > > > > From andrea at inet.it Fri Dec 13 09:33:36 2002 From: andrea at inet.it (Andrea Borgato) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 09:33:36 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: [lir-wg]Election of chairs to the lir-wg - call for nominations In-Reply-To: <167401750.1039732943@cq> References: <2453109.1035409361@[192.168.0.128]> <2453109.1035409361@[192.168.0.128]> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021213091953.025291b0@pop.inet.it> Well, At 22.42 12/12/2002 +0100, Hans Petter Holen wrote: >Dear wg, >I have seen no reactions to this posting. > >I would think it should be fairly important to the wg to figure out: > >1) Who should chair this wg in the future ? I'm agree with you on importance level of this issue, so I start to submit me nominations statement: I'm Andrea Borgato, I.NET LIR Manager. I'm currently support on LIR start up activities some italian companies. I joined to RIPE community since 1995 and I attend all ripe meeting since the beginning of 2000. >2) Are the current chairs accepting renomination ? (yes I am if you still want me :-) Yes. Of course I support Hans Peter renomination as chair. >3) Does the wg want to have 1 chair and 2 co chairs ? As I observed in the past 1 chair and 2 co chairs still remain good decision. At least I will available to contribute in wg if community will supported me. Andrea Borgato. >-hph > >--On 23. oktober 2002 21:42 +0200 Hans Petter Holen wrote: > >>Dear wg, >>As mentioned at the last wg-meeting, one of the co-chairs, James >>Alderidge, has started working for the RIPE NCC, and as one of the >>unwritten rules of the LIR-wg is that it should be chaired by non RIPE >>NCC staff, James is no longer serving as a co-chair of this wg. >> >>Last time we had an election the wg deceided that one chair and two >>co-chairs was suitable. As I find it good practice to hold an open >>election from time to time I propose that we do an election for all 3 >>chairs. >> >>I would like to propose to the WG that we do a open nomination process on >>the lir-wg list up until lets say one month before the next RIPE meeting >>(27 to 31 January 2003) for chair and two co-chairs and that we do the >>chair election at the next wg meeting in Amsterdam. >> >>This should give the wg a good opportunity to discuss potential >>candidates. >> >>Best Regards, >>Hans Petter Holen >>lir-wg chair. > > From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Wed Dec 11 15:54:41 2002 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 15:54:41 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: 50% increase in RIPE fees ? Since when ? In-Reply-To: <20021204111536.GA2620@reifchen.karrenberg.net> Message-ID: <7A7B3D33-0D18-11D7-A3F3-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> >> disadvantage.... >> What is starting to worry me is the >> replies indicating that asking these questions would be improper.... > > [OK. I go for the red banket, just this once ....;-)] > > If these are inferences on my contributions here, they hold no water. If you mean my concerns about questions - no. > Having said that I want to make clear that I take issue with polemics > without even taking the time to obtain the information that is > available. I take issue with polemics against open and due process > without stating where the process has been closed or not proper. I > take > issue with polemics claiming that "me and everyone else thinks X" > without any substantiation of the claim. I take issue with polemics > against a widely announced and low threshold open membership survey > conducted by a well respected third party without suggesting a better > alternative. .... I agree with you that these is nothing broken with the process as such. With the small notion that I support the idea of having the RIPE AGM with a RIPE meeting. > This starts to remind me of ICANN discussions. If RIPE starts to feel like ICANN, that is really bad. But it is also the job of the NCC to make sure that does not happen. - kurtis - From engin at ripe.net Fri Dec 20 11:44:44 2002 From: engin at ripe.net (Engin Gunduz) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 11:44:44 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Updated proposal for clean-up of references by name Message-ID: <20021220104444.GF5138@x47.ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate messages] Dear Colleagues, I'm attaching the updated proposal for automatically cleaning up the references by name in RIPE Whois Database. We have incorporated Janos's suggestions to the proposal. If no more comments come, we plan to apply the procedure described in the proposal in the first half of January, 2003. The operation should not take more than a day. We will notify the community about the actual date of the operation. Regards, Engin Gunduz ____________________________ RIPE NCC Database Group -------------- Proposed solution for cleaning up references by name and other invalid references in RIPE Whois Database Motivation: References by name and invalid references cause two main problems: 1. One reference by name in a single object locks all person and role objects with that name, that is, they cannot be deleted, because of referential integrity checks. 2. Having anything other than a NIC handle as a reference makes the implementation of whois database software considerably more complex, since the software needs to deal with these exceptions. This increases the coding time, maintenance time and testing time of the software. Classification of the inconsistencies we need to solve and proposed solutions: 1. Objects that refer to a person or role object by name. a. There is only one object with this name. 1. The referring inconsistent object is not maintained, or the maintainers of referring inconsistent object and the person/role object with this name are the same. Solution: Update the referring inconsistent object so that it will contain the NIC handle instead of the name. Add appropriate remarks and changed attributes to the object to explain the reason for update. 2. The referring object is maintained, and the maintainers are different from the maintainers of the object with the referred name (If the latter object is not maintained, then the maintainers are by definition different.) Solution: Create a role object with this name. It will list the role or person object with this name in its admin-c and tech-c attributes. Update the inconsistent object to refer to the NIC handle of this new role object. Add appropriate remarks and changed attributes to the object to explain the reason for update. b. There is no person or role object with this name: Solution: Create a person object with this name. Clearly mark this new object putting appropriate remarks attributes so that users will see it is actually a dummy object. Update the inconsistent object to refer to the NIC handle of this new person object. Add appropriate remarks and changed attributes to the object to explain the reason for update. Protect it with the inconsistent object's maintainer(s). c. There are multiple person and role objects with this name. Solution: Create a role object with this name. It will list all the other role and person objects with the same name in its admin-c and tech-c attributes. Update the inconsistent object to refer to the NIC handle of this new role object. Add appropriate remarks and changed attributes to the object to explain the reason for update. 2. Objects that refer to a non-existent NIC handle. Solution: Create a person object with that NIC handle. Clearly mark this new object so that users will see it is actually a dummy object. Name it "person: Place Holder Object". Protect it with the inconsistent object's maintainer(s). Note that there is no need to update the inconsistent object itself. 3. Objects that refer to a string which is neither a name, nor a NIC handle. For example, it might be a phone number in admin-c attribute, or it might be 'Gunduz', a string that can't be a NIC handle, as it's longer than 4 letters, nor can it be a name as it has only one word. Another example could be "Mr. Gunduz", which enters this category because "Mr" can't appear in a name of person/role object. Solution: Create a person object for each such reference. Name the object "person: Place Holder Object" and list the object that refers to it in its remarks attribute. Protect it with inconsistent object's maintainer(s). Then update the inconsistent object to refer to the NIC handle of this new place holder person object. In each case an object is updated, or created, send appropriate notifications (determined by "mnt-by" and "notify" attributes, as with all other updates). Please note that this proposal does not actually solve the problem of invalid contact information-- rather, it makes the data set more uniform, thus decreases the administration and development time of the whois database. From hpholen at tiscali.no Tue Dec 31 12:41:26 2002 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:41:26 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Draft Agenda for RIPE 44 (version 0.3) Message-ID: <42625968.1041338486@cq> Dear Working Group, Please find enclosed a draft agenda for the upcoming working group. As a matter of procedure I suggest that Policy items to be discussed are to be discussed at the mailinglist. We should aslo be careful not to make policy desicions at the upcoming meeting _unless_ there is a concrete proposal circulated to the list in advance of the meeting, we should circulate any policy proposals to this list after te meeting before making any policy desicions. Thanks to leo for preparing the very first draft, looking forward to input from the rest of you. Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen lir-wg chair --- Draft Agenda for RIPE 44 (version 0.2) Wednesday 29 January 2003 09:00 - 12:30 Chair: Hans Petter Holen Co-chair: Denesh Bhabuta A. Admin: Scribe Participant List, Charter, Mailing lists B. Agenda bashing C. RIPE 43 minutes and actions http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/r43-minutes.html http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/lir-actions.html D. Report from the RIPE NCC Registration Services Presentation by leo vegoda E. Report from the Address Council - Presentation F. Election of new LIR-WG Chairs G. LIR Portal H. Policy issues -- Mailing list AUP ? -- EGLOP Multicast policy discussion ? -- IPv6 policy - experiences ? -- IP addressing for always on (residential broadband) revisited ? X. Any other business Y. Summary of actions arising from this meeting Z. Open microphone