From hpholen at tiscali.no Thu Oct 3 08:02:58 2002 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 08:02:58 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> References: <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> Message-ID: <428828781.1033632178@localhost> Here is the final proposal from the ICANN reform Committee. -hph ------------ Forwarded Message ------------ Date: 2. oktober 2002 19:15 -0700 From: Louis Touton To: ASO Council Subject: [aso-council] ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee "Final" Report and Recommendations To the Address Council: In preparation for the ICANN Shanghai meeting on 28-31 October, the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee has issued its "Final" Implementation Report and Recommendations. The document is posted at . This report is accompanied by a set of proposed new bylaws that describe the (proposed) steady-state future structure and processes for ICANN. The report gives a summary of the major features of the proposed bylaws. This Report is expected to be the main topic of discussion at the ICANN meeting in Shanghai in late October. As explained in the report, the Evolution and Reform Committee recommends that arrangements for transition to the reformed ICANN (as determined at the Shanghai meeting) be considered immediately after the Shanghai meeting. With regard to the ASO, the Committee's report states: ASO. We recommend that the current ASO structure and operations, as set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and various regional Internet address registries, remain unchanged. We believe that it would be appropriate for the Address Council to have a non-voting liaison designated by the Governmental Advisory Committee, but discussions on this topic are still ongoing with the RIRs. The RIRs have raised other concerns with, and proposed other changes regarding, the role of the ASO, which should be the topic of continuing discussions. The ASO provisions of the proposed New Bylaws are in Article VIII, which is posted at . Although the ASO has been one of the better-operating ICANN bodies to date, the members of the Evolution and Reform Committee would very much like to hear and discuss views of members of the Address Council and the broader address community about any ideas for optimizing the ASO's operations. Best regards, Louis Touton Secretary * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-council * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-council-request at aso.icann.org * ---------- End Forwarded Message ---------- --On 24. september 2002 23:57 +0200 Hans Petter Holen wrote: > Dear lir-wg, > > On the topic if the ICANN reform > http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/blueprint-20jun02.htm > > With reference to the RIR joint statement of June 20th > http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/rir-icann-statement-20020620.h > tml > > and the response from the ICANN reform committee: > http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/update-16sep02.htm > > and the discussion at the RIPE meeting I would like to ask the lir-wg > members to study theese statements and actively participate in the ICANN > reform process. > > Either by: > 1) Discussion on this list, and with clear advice to your AC members on > how you wish to advice us to act. > > or > > 2) submitting your oppinion directly to the ERC > http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/blueprint-20jun02.htm > > Best Regards, > Hans Petter Holen > lir-wg chair > From bob.arnesen at telia.com Wed Oct 2 20:05:22 2002 From: bob.arnesen at telia.com (Bob Arnesen) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 20:05:22 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses Message-ID: <001501c26a3e$491625a0$8bcf40d5@telia.com> We live in Stockholm, Sweden and have the big government telephone company TELIA as our ISP. We have had internet services through their ADSL for a little over a year now and to my surprise I have recently found out that Telia has assigned us a fixed IP address. Every time we log on to the internet we start surfing with the same IP address every time. From a security and personal integrity point of view we may as well be surfing with our Social Security Numbers if that?s the case. Of course dealing with a company the size of Telia you are immediately in David against Goliath position, and their position up to now is to just jack us around and assume no responsibility. When we had the old 56K modem and even ISDN, every time we got on the net we had a new IP address. Impossible to trace us and our surfing habits to a specific number. But not so with Telia?s ADSL. My questions are the following: * Is Telia?s current practice as I have described considered a breach of privacy for the private person/customer? * Is Telia following agreed International and /or European standards regarding IP addresses? * Am I able to lodge a formal complaint against such practices, either at the Ripe 44 meeting in Amsterdam in January or somewhere else? I do hope that The LIR-WG will be able to provide me with some answers. Regards, Robert Arnesen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Oct 3 10:33:34 2002 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 10:33:34 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <428828781.1033632178@localhost> References: <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021003103258.02403858@localhost.ripe.net> At 08:02 AM 10/3/2002, Hans Petter Holen wrote: >Here is the final proposal from the ICANN reform Committee. > >-hph After an initial reading this looks like - more of the same - too much form - very little substance Daniel From beri at eurorings.net Thu Oct 3 11:23:16 2002 From: beri at eurorings.net (Berislav Todorovic) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:23:16 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses In-Reply-To: <001501c26a3e$491625a0$8bcf40d5@telia.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Bob Arnesen wrote: >> to my surprise I have recently found out that Telia has assigned us a >> fixed IP address. Yes ... as that's the case with most of the ADSL providers elsewhere. >From the RIPE policy perspective, ADSL is sitting in the vacuum between dial-in (needing dynamically assigned addresses) and leased line access (where static addresses are justifiable). ADSL is, in fact, an "always on" kind of service and thus usage of statically assigned IP addresses is justified (see ripe-234 - section 5.2.2). Most customers, however, seem to like this. Of course, for people who dislike it there might always be a solution but it's up to your ISP to implement it. There is no policy that would force the ISP to do it though. Current RIPE policies primarily deal with conservation of public IP addresses, since they are a limited resource. Privacy issue is an interesting aspect and probably deserves some attention, but noone addressed it so far. RIPE policies are created and modified by a wide community of Internet users. Anyone interested to voluntarily participate in the policy making process is welcome to join and contribute - either by attending the meetings or participating on the mailing lists. The process itself is based on general consensus. Be, however, aware that neither RIPE, nor RIPE NCC will deal with any complaints about how ISPs are doing their business and treating their customers. Your national telecom regulator is the proper authority for such things. For Sweden - try PTS (www.pts.se). Hope this helps. Regards, Beri --------- Berislav Todorovic, Senior IP Specialist -------- ----- KPN Eurorings B.V. - IP Engineering/NOC/Support ----- ---- Wilhelmina van Pruisenweg 78, 2595 AN Den Haag, NL ---- ----- Email: beri at eurorings.net <=> beri at EU.net ---- From john at veidit.net Thu Oct 3 11:30:16 2002 From: john at veidit.net (John Angelmo) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:30:16 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses In-Reply-To: References: <001501c26a3e$491625a0$8bcf40d5@telia.com> Message-ID: <20021003113016.5442cdff.john@veidit.net> On Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:23:16 +0200 (MET DST) Berislav Todorovic wrote: > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Bob Arnesen wrote: > > >> to my surprise I have recently found out that Telia has assigned us a > >> fixed IP address. > > Yes ... as that's the case with most of the ADSL providers elsewhere. > > >From the RIPE policy perspective, ADSL is sitting in the vacuum > between dial-in (needing dynamically assigned addresses) and leased > line access (where static addresses are justifiable). ADSL is, in > fact, an "always on" kind of service and thus usage of statically > assigned IP addresses is justified (see ripe-234 - section 5.2.2). Telia assigns IPs with DHCP but they try to lock it to the users MAC adress, so I don't see that as a problem. They try to assign the same IP as often as possible since most users like that, the adress is locked to the MAC but is released if that MAC isn't avaliable after a few hours /John From bortzmeyer at gitoyen.net Thu Oct 3 11:53:41 2002 From: bortzmeyer at gitoyen.net (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:53:41 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses In-Reply-To: <001501c26a3e$491625a0$8bcf40d5@telia.com> References: <001501c26a3e$491625a0$8bcf40d5@telia.com> Message-ID: <20021003095341.GA632@nic.fr> On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 08:05:22PM +0200, Bob Arnesen wrote a message of 288 lines which said: > Telia has assigned us a fixed IP address. Every time we log on to the ... > * Am I able to lodge a formal complaint against such practices, either It is very funny. In most cases, people want a fixed IP address. In France, expect Nerim, *all* ADSL providers make you *pay* an extra if you want a fixed IP address. From bortzmeyer at gitoyen.net Thu Oct 3 11:58:50 2002 From: bortzmeyer at gitoyen.net (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:58:50 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses In-Reply-To: <001501c26a3e$491625a0$8bcf40d5@telia.com> References: <001501c26a3e$491625a0$8bcf40d5@telia.com> Message-ID: <20021003095850.GB632@nic.fr> On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 08:05:22PM +0200, Bob Arnesen wrote a message of 288 lines which said: > * Is Telia?s current practice as I have described considered a breach > of privacy for the private person/customer? When the connection is through a leased line (companies, universities, etc), it is very common that every machine has a fixed IP address. It is currently the case with my machine in my office. It seems it has never been a problem. Only dialup users were used to dynamic addresses but they are not the norm. RFC 3041 discusses a similar problem for IPv6. Most of the discussion applies to IPv4. I quote it: A more interesting case concerns always-on connections (e.g., cable modems, ISDN, DSL, etc.) that result in a home site using the same address for extended periods of time. This is a scenario that is just starting to become common in IPv4 and promises to become more of a concern as always-on internet connectivity becomes widely available. Although it might appear that changing an address regularly in such environments would be desirable to lessen privacy concerns, it should be noted that the network prefix portion of an address also serves as a constant identifier. > * Is Telia following agreed International and /or European standards > regarding IP addresses? It is not RIPE-NCC business to do anything about privacy issues. From nuno.vieira at nfsi.pt Thu Oct 3 12:03:16 2002 From: nuno.vieira at nfsi.pt (Nuno Vieira) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:03:16 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses In-Reply-To: <20021003095341.GA632@nic.fr> Message-ID: <018101c26ac4$17cb02f0$01c95c51@nuno> It isn't only in France.. In Portugal -all- ADSL providers charge you for static ip addresses, when prices can reach 40 EUR / month -only- for that. -- Nuno Vieira - NFSi - Solucoes Internet, Lda. http://www.nfsi.pt/ -----Mensagem original----- De: owner-lir-wg at ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg at ripe.net] Em nome de Stephane Bortzmeyer Enviada: quinta-feira, 3 de Outubro de 2002 10:54 Para: Bob Arnesen Cc: lir-wg at ripe.net Assunto: Re: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 08:05:22PM +0200, Bob Arnesen wrote a message of 288 lines which said: > Telia has assigned us a fixed IP address. Every time we log on to the ... > * Am I able to lodge a formal complaint against such practices, either It is very funny. In most cases, people want a fixed IP address. In France, expect Nerim, *all* ADSL providers make you *pay* an extra if you want a fixed IP address. From bortzmeyer at gitoyen.net Thu Oct 3 12:06:32 2002 From: bortzmeyer at gitoyen.net (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:06:32 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses In-Reply-To: <018101c26ac4$17cb02f0$01c95c51@nuno> References: <20021003095341.GA632@nic.fr> <018101c26ac4$17cb02f0$01c95c51@nuno> Message-ID: <20021003100632.GA1570@nic.fr> On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 11:03:16AM +0100, Nuno Vieira wrote a message of 33 lines which said: > It isn't only in France.. > > In Portugal -all- ADSL providers charge you for static ip addresses, So it seems that, for most European users, convenience is more important than privacy (if we admit that the market is always right). From mally at mally.net Thu Oct 3 12:10:05 2002 From: mally at mally.net (Mally Mclane) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:10:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses In-Reply-To: <20021003100632.GA1570@nic.fr> Message-ID: On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > So it seems that, for most European users, convenience is more > important than privacy (if we admit that the market is always right). I think it is more likely that your average common user is simply unaware of possible privacy implications. Most people simply want to 'get on the net'. m [speaking for himself, not his employer] From mguz at Scotland.net Thu Oct 3 10:55:27 2002 From: mguz at Scotland.net (Mark S. Guz) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 09:55:27 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses References: <001501c26a3e$491625a0$8bcf40d5@telia.com> Message-ID: <3D9C05FF.8030303@Scotland.net> Bob Arnesen wrote: > We live in Stockholm, Sweden and have the big government telephone > company TELIA as our ISP. We have had internet services through their > ADSL for a little over a year now and to my surprise I have recently > found out that Telia has assigned us a fixed IP address. Every time we > log on to the internet we start surfing with the _same IP address every > time._ From a security and personal integrity point of view we may as > well be surfing with our Social Security Numbers if that?s the case. Of > course dealing with a company the size of Telia you are immediately in > David against Goliath position, and their position up to now is to just > jack us around and assume no responsibility. When we had the old 56K > modem and even ISDN, every time we got on the net we had a new IP > address. Impossible to trace us and our surfing habits to a specific > number. But not so with Telia?s ADSL. > If you think that a variable ip address gives you internet anonymity then you are very very niave indeed. ISP's can easily track individual address's back to login accounts via stored logs. All someone needs is an ip address and a time and the isp can locate the person that was logged in. Me thinks you are suffering from a reaction of the jerky knee variety > My questions are the following: > > > > q Is Telia?s current practice as I have described considered a > breach of privacy for the private person/customer? I doubt it. Are they in breach of privacy for giving you a static phone number? > > q Is Telia following agreed International and /or European > standards regarding IP addresses? Working for an ISP myself what they're doing looks pretty normal to me. > > q Am I able to lodge a formal complaint against such practices, > either at the Ripe 44 meeting in Amsterdam in January or somewhere else? > > I guess you probably can, I'm sure the ensuing mirth will be quite refreshing. given the sudden increase in paranoia levels around here this might be of some use to you aswell http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html ;-) Regards Mark Guz > > I do hope that The LIR-WG will be able to provide me with some answers. > Regards, > > Robert Arnesen > > > From leigh.geary at netcentral.co.uk Thu Oct 3 10:58:31 2002 From: leigh.geary at netcentral.co.uk (Leigh Geary) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 09:58:31 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses In-Reply-To: <001501c26a3e$491625a0$8bcf40d5@telia.com> Message-ID: Bob, Most ISP's give out fixed IP's for their ADSL customers. Hope this helps, ____________________________________ Leigh Geary - Internet Engineer Internet Central Limited Visit us now for all your Internet solutions - www.netcentral.co.uk WebSupport: www.support.netcentral.co.uk Email: leigh.geary at netcentral.co.uk Direct: 01782 667761 Support: 01782 667766 Sales: 01782 667788 Fax: 01782 667799 This communication is confidential to the addressee shown in the main text of the message. It must not be disclosed to or used by anyone other than the addressee unless disclosure is a legal requirement or has been agreed to by a separate written agreement. The company scans for but accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is the addressee?s responsibility to scan attachments ____________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: owner-support at mail.keele.netcentral.co.uk [mailto:owner-support at mail.keele.netcentral.co.uk]On Behalf Of Bob Arnesen Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 7:05 PM To: lir-wg at ripe.net Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses We live in Stockholm, Sweden and have the big government telephone company TELIA as our ISP. We have had internet services through their ADSL for a little over a year now and to my surprise I have recently found out that Telia has assigned us a fixed IP address. Every time we log on to the internet we start surfing with the same IP address every time. From a security and personal integrity point of view we may as well be surfing with our Social Security Numbers if that?s the case. Of course dealing with a company the size of Telia you are immediately in David against Goliath position, and their position up to now is to just jack us around and assume no responsibility. When we had the old 56K modem and even ISDN, every time we got on the net we had a new IP address. Impossible to trace us and our surfing habits to a specific number. But not so with Telia?s ADSL. My questions are the following: q Is Telia?s current practice as I have described considered a breach of privacy for the private person/customer? q Is Telia following agreed International and /or European standards regarding IP addresses? q Am I able to lodge a formal complaint against such practices, either at the Ripe 44 meeting in Amsterdam in January or somewhere else? I do hope that The LIR-WG will be able to provide me with some answers. Regards, Robert Arnesen _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. Service supplied by Internet Central http://www.internet-central.net From lmb at suse.de Thu Oct 3 11:59:00 2002 From: lmb at suse.de (Lars Marowsky-Bree) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:59:00 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses In-Reply-To: <20021003095341.GA632@nic.fr> References: <001501c26a3e$491625a0$8bcf40d5@telia.com> <20021003095341.GA632@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20021003095900.GA6663@marowsky-bree.de> On 2002-10-03T11:53:41, Stephane Bortzmeyer said: > It is very funny. In most cases, people want a fixed IP address. Except in those cases where customers want security through obscurity and don't understand networking. Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Br?e -- Principal Squirrel Research and Development, SuSE Linux AG ``Immortality is an adequate definition of high availability for me.'' --- Gregory F. Pfister From webmaster at NETCENTRAL.CO.UK Thu Oct 3 12:21:22 2002 From: webmaster at NETCENTRAL.CO.UK (Webmaster) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:21:22 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses In-Reply-To: <20021003100632.GA1570@nic.fr> Message-ID: Most ISP's use static IP's with ADSL customers. Usually a 30 bit address. Regards, ____________________________________ Leigh Geary - Internet Engineer Internet Central Limited Visit us now for all your Internet solutions - www.netcentral.co.uk WebSupport: www.support.netcentral.co.uk Email: leigh.geary at netcentral.co.uk Direct: 01782 667761 Support: 01782 667766 Sales: 01782 667788 Fax: 01782 667799 This communication is confidential to the addressee shown in the main text of the message. It must not be disclosed to or used by anyone other than the addressee unless disclosure is a legal requirement or has been agreed to by a separate written agreement. The company scans for but accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is the addressee's responsibility to scan attachments ____________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: owner-support at mail.keele.netcentral.co.uk [mailto:owner-support at mail.keele.netcentral.co.uk]On Behalf Of Stephane Bortzmeyer Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 11:07 AM To: Nuno Vieira Cc: lir-wg at ripe.net; Bob Arnesen Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 11:03:16AM +0100, Nuno Vieira wrote a message of 33 lines which said: > It isn't only in France.. > > In Portugal -all- ADSL providers charge you for static ip addresses, So it seems that, for most European users, convenience is more important than privacy (if we admit that the market is always right). _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre. Service supplied by Internet Central http://www.internet-central.net SPAM: -------------------- Start SpamAssassin results ---------------------- SPAM: This mail is probably spam. The original message has been altered SPAM: so you can recognise or block similar unwanted mail in future. SPAM: See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. SPAM: SPAM: Content analysis details: (-4.4 hits, 7 required) SPAM: Hit! (-4.4 points) 'In-Reply-To' line found SPAM: SPAM: -------------------- End of SpamAssassin results --------------------- From arien.vijn at ams-ix.net Thu Oct 3 13:26:58 2002 From: arien.vijn at ams-ix.net (Arien Vijn) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 13:26:58 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses In-Reply-To: <001501c26a3e$491625a0$8bcf40d5@telia.com> Message-ID: On 02-10-2002 20:05PM, "Bob Arnesen" wrote: [ Telia apparently assigns static addresses to their ADSL customers ] > * Is Telia?s current practice as I have described considered a breach of > privacy for the private person/customer? > No. In fact many would like it because it's handy when running services and it's necessary for ACLs on remote systems. But many ISPs only assign IP addresses dynamically using DHCP. Meanly to avoid the administrative burden that comes with statically assigned addresses. > * Is Telia following agreed International and /or European standards > regarding IP addresses? > No. Naturally your ISP should respect your normal privacy rights as an individual. But that has little to do with dynamic/static IP addresses. Even if you where to get dynamic address it will be out of a limited pool. > * Am I able to lodge a formal complaint against such practices, either > at the Ripe 44 meeting in Amsterdam in January or somewhere else? > The meetings are open for everyone (who pays the fee that is). But keep in mind that RIPE deals with large blocks of IP address space which they hand out to organisations (LIRs). RIPE does not deal with address assignments to individuals. > > I do hope that The LIR-WG will be able to provide me with some answers. > LIR-wg deals with processes and policies to distribute address space to LIRs. I don't think it is the right platform to raise this issue. I suggest you have a look into IPv6 and it's privacy extensions. If you really think it's a problem to use the same address over and over again. IPv4 space is just to small to hide ;-) Arien From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Thu Oct 3 13:56:55 2002 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 13:56:55 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses Message-ID: <00A14E6D.32557A00.9@cc.univie.ac.at> ...from the point of view of a plain commercial ADSL service customer: >On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 08:05:22PM +0200, > Bob Arnesen wrote > a message of 288 lines which said: > >> Telia has assigned us a fixed IP address. Every time we log on to the >... >> * Am I able to lodge a formal complaint against such practices, either How I'd love to trade places with you. I'd regularly ship you my constantly changing IP addresses in return for your fixed one :-) Cheers, Wilfried. From gyan at nl.demon.net Thu Oct 3 12:26:08 2002 From: gyan at nl.demon.net (Gyan Mathur) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 12:26:08 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses In-Reply-To: Message from Mally Mclane of "Thu, 03 Oct 2002 12:10:05 +0200." Message-ID: Hoi > > So it seems that, for most European users, convenience is more > > important than privacy (if we admit that the market is always right). > > I think it is more likely that your average common user is simply unaware > of possible privacy implications. Most people simply want to 'get on the > net'. If a customer sends unwanted mail or has got a proxy that someone misuses, it is much easier to find out which customer it is if they have got a static IP address. Gyan Demon Internet Nederland From john at veidit.net Thu Oct 3 14:12:39 2002 From: john at veidit.net (John Angelmo) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 14:12:39 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses In-Reply-To: References: <001501c26a3e$491625a0$8bcf40d5@telia.com> Message-ID: <20021003141239.163582c4.john@veidit.net> On Thu, 03 Oct 2002 13:26:58 +0200 Arien Vijn wrote: > On 02-10-2002 20:05PM, "Bob Arnesen" wrote: > > [ Telia apparently assigns static addresses to their ADSL customers ] > > > * Is Telia_s current practice as I have described considered a breach of > > privacy for the private person/customer? > > > > No. In fact many would like it because it's handy when running services and > it's necessary for ACLs on remote systems. > > But many ISPs only assign IP addresses dynamically using DHCP. Meanly to > avoid the administrative burden that comes with statically assigned > addresses. Telia uses DHCP but they tend to lock it to the MAC and the users like that. > > > * Is Telia following agreed International and /or European standards > > regarding IP addresses? > > > > No. Naturally your ISP should respect your normal privacy rights as an > individual. > > But that has little to do with dynamic/static IP addresses. Even if you > where to get dynamic address it will be out of a limited pool. > > > * Am I able to lodge a formal complaint against such practices, either > > at the Ripe 44 meeting in Amsterdam in January or somewhere else? > > > > The meetings are open for everyone (who pays the fee that is). > > But keep in mind that RIPE deals with large blocks of IP address space which > they hand out to organisations (LIRs). RIPE does not deal with address > assignments to individuals. > > > > > I do hope that The LIR-WG will be able to provide me with some answers. > > > > LIR-wg deals with processes and policies to distribute address space to > LIRs. I don't think it is the right platform to raise this issue. Yes you are right. susning.nu/telia there's some good info in Swedish /John > > I suggest you have a look into IPv6 and it's privacy extensions. If you > really think it's a problem to use the same address over and over again. > IPv4 space is just to small to hide ;-) > > Arien > From kurtis at kurtis.pp.se Thu Oct 3 15:15:33 2002 From: kurtis at kurtis.pp.se (Kurt Erik Lindqvist) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 15:15:33 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses In-Reply-To: <3D9C05FF.8030303@Scotland.net> Message-ID: <32AA1067-D6D2-11D6-A9FA-000393AB1404@kurtis.pp.se> > ISP's can easily track individual address's back to login accounts via > stored logs. All someone needs is an ip address and a time and the isp > can locate the person that was logged in. Cookies anyone? - kurtis - From lmb at suse.de Thu Oct 3 12:13:29 2002 From: lmb at suse.de (Lars Marowsky-Bree) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 12:13:29 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses In-Reply-To: <20021003100632.GA1570@nic.fr> References: <20021003095341.GA632@nic.fr> <018101c26ac4$17cb02f0$01c95c51@nuno> <20021003100632.GA1570@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20021003101329.GB6663@marowsky-bree.de> On 2002-10-03T12:06:32, Stephane Bortzmeyer said: > So it seems that, for most European users, convenience is more > important than privacy (if we admit that the market is always right). No worthwhile privacy is gained through dynamic IP assignment. Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Br?e -- Principal Squirrel Research and Development, SuSE Linux AG ``Immortality is an adequate definition of high availability for me.'' --- Gregory F. Pfister From gert at space.net Thu Oct 3 16:09:05 2002 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:09:05 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses In-Reply-To: <001501c26a3e$491625a0$8bcf40d5@telia.com>; from bob.arnesen@telia.com on Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 08:05:22PM +0200 References: <001501c26a3e$491625a0$8bcf40d5@telia.com> Message-ID: <20021003160905.X80239@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 08:05:22PM +0200, Bob Arnesen wrote: > My questions are the following: > > * Is Telia?s current practice as I have described considered a breach > of privacy for the private person/customer? > * Is Telia following agreed International and /or European standards > regarding IP addresses? > * Am I able to lodge a formal complaint against such practices, either > at the Ripe 44 meeting in Amsterdam in January or somewhere else? > > I do hope that The LIR-WG will be able to provide me with some answers. Your approach is *interesting*. Usually people are quite happy if they can get a fixed IP address at all (which could be used to provide services, set up a VPN connection to your home network from abroad, and whatnot), and the cheap DSL services *usuall* provide only dynamic IP addresses. I don't think there is anything formally wrong with providing you a static IP address, so there is no basis for a "formal" complaint. As for the privacy concerns - there are worse things than tracking IP addresses (HTML cookies, web bugs, and so on) - you might want to check services as www.anonymizer.com that have been set up to handle exactly all those issues. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 47686 (47095) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From gert at space.net Thu Oct 3 16:12:28 2002 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 16:12:28 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses In-Reply-To: ; from beri@eurorings.net on Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 11:23:16AM +0200 References: <001501c26a3e$491625a0$8bcf40d5@telia.com> Message-ID: <20021003161228.Y80239@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 11:23:16AM +0200, Berislav Todorovic wrote: > >From the RIPE policy perspective, ADSL is sitting in the vacuum > between dial-in (needing dynamically assigned addresses) and leased > line access (where static addresses are justifiable). ADSL is, in > fact, an "always on" kind of service and thus usage of statically > assigned IP addresses is justified (see ripe-234 - section 5.2.2). Just to clarify this. Dial-In does NOT NEED TO USE dynamic IP addresses. Neither does cable modem. The "issue" about dial-in customers is just that ISPs are usually unwilling to enter all their individual IP assignments into the RIPE database, and so it's much easier to go down the dynamic dial-in route. >From the RIPE policy standpoint, there is NO difference between dial-in, ADSL, cable, leased lines, and whatever technologies people use to hook up to the net. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 47686 (47095) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From hamster at korenwolf.net Thu Oct 3 16:17:03 2002 From: hamster at korenwolf.net (Mark Lowes) Date: 03 Oct 2002 15:17:03 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses In-Reply-To: <20021003161228.Y80239@Space.Net> References: <001501c26a3e$491625a0$8bcf40d5@telia.com> <20021003161228.Y80239@Space.Net> Message-ID: <1033654623.2288.1554.camel@weasel> On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 15:12, Gert Doering wrote: > The "issue" about dial-in customers is just that ISPs are usually > unwilling to enter all their individual IP assignments into the RIPE > database, and so it's much easier to go down the dynamic dial-in route. > > >From the RIPE policy standpoint, there is NO difference between > dial-in, ADSL, cable, leased lines, and whatever technologies people > use to hook up to the net. However for dialup it's generally a more effcient use of IP space to use dynamic pools due the contention of the service (ie 20:1 modem ratios and the like). With ADSL and other fixed circuit technologies the connection often uncontended at the port level (bandwidth is a different issue) so allocating static/semi-static IPs make sense as the savings in IP space usage are likely to be less or nil. Mark -- The Flying Hamster http://www.korenwolf.net/ I like to travel to other countries and make new friendships based on trust and mutual understanding. - Ghengis Kahn From feico at pasta.cs.uit.no Thu Oct 3 11:07:34 2002 From: feico at pasta.cs.uit.no (Feico Dillema) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:07:34 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses In-Reply-To: <001501c26a3e$491625a0$8bcf40d5@telia.com> References: <001501c26a3e$491625a0$8bcf40d5@telia.com> Message-ID: <20021003090734.GY313@pasta.cs.uit.no> On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 08:05:22PM +0200, Bob Arnesen wrote: > We live in Stockholm, Sweden and > have the big government telephone company TELIA as our ISP. We have had > internet services through their ADSL for a little over a year now and to my > surprise I have recently found out that Telia has assigned us a fixed IP > address. Every time we log on to the internet we start surfing with the > same IP address every time. This is how the Internet was designed over 30 years ago and how it is supposed to work. > From a security and personal integrity point of view we may as well be > surfing with our Social Security Numbers if thats the case. Of course dealing That is a ridiculous statement. You don't use your IP address to formally or legally identify yourself like you do with Social Security Numbers. From a security and personal integrity point of view it would be much more appropriate for you to complain and protest about how Social Security Numbers are (mis-)used nowadays in many countries for purposes that they were not meant to (like authentication and autorization in the private sector). Giving people a static IP address is a *nice* thing to do. Dynamic addresses are a way to multiplex a scarce resource, and *not* a way to protect your personal integrity or privacy. Dynamic addresses basically provide you with a one-way service while a static IP address makes you fully connected to the Internet with a two-way service (just like a stable telephone number does for your mobile). > on the net we had a new IP address. Impossible to trace us and our surfing > habits to a specific number. But not so with Telias ADSL. Non-sense. It is very easy to trace you. That has little to nothing do with static or dynamic allocation of IP addresses. Nobody uses IP addresses to trace people or consumers behaviour, right now. There are much easier and reliable ways, like cookies, invisible anchors in WWW-pages or other similar techniques at the application level. Some comments: 1. Your service provider can always trace you (independent of the technology used). Your protection should be legal or contractual, not technical. 2. The only way to not be identified and be somewaht untraceable for the other end of your surfing connection is by not talking to them directly, but bury yourself in the noise of a big crowd (that is not homogeneous). In practice this means you need to surf through an anonymizing proxy that strips your connection/communication of all (or most) of the bits that can identify you (this is actually technically near impossible). Many people use regular proxies (even without knowing it) because the ISP has set them up to save bandwith. Very few use (or will use) proxies that have as main goal to anonimize their clients. 3. Anonymity is not a legal nor moral right in most (if not all) civilizations and societies, including the Western democracies. Anonymity is not the same as privacy or personal integrity, and sometimes it is the opposite (e.g. when a marketing company calls me I experience that as a violation of my privacy and an invasion into my private sphere, while they typically use the `privacy-protecting' feature of caller-ID blocking to hide their identity). 4. Your ISP is not responsible for your privacy *in general*. They are legally and morally responsible for protecting the information they have collected about you (for example personal info, billing info or logs of their portal or servers). > Is Telias current practice as I have described considered a breach of > privacy for the private person/customer? Surely not. > Is Telia following agreed International and /or European standards > regarding IP addresses? Of course. > Am I able to lodge a formal complaint against such practices, either at > the Ripe 44 meeting in Amsterdam in January or somewhere else? Are you able to do so for getting a telephone number that never changes when you subscribe to a telephone service? I think not. > I do hope that The LIR-WG will be able to provide me with some answers. Regards, Feico Dillema. - Data Snekker - Department of Computer Science - University of Troms? From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Thu Oct 3 18:31:39 2002 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 18:31:39 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] creation of taskforce to support the ERX project (early registration xfer) Message-ID: <00A14E93.9393C670.24@cc.univie.ac.at> Dear participants in the DB and LIR WGs, as discussed and agreed in the DB-WG in Rhodes, and reported to the plenary, this is the "heads up" for the creation of a TaskForce (ERX-TF) to help in planning and test-driving the procedures and activities required to *most efficiently* perform the transfer of "early registrations" (sometimes also referred to as "legacy" IPv4 address space) from the ARIN DB to the RIPE DB.. [ For background information about the ERX Project please refer to the RIPE / RIPE NCC web pages. ] The proposed name of the TaskForce is "ERX-TF" . The preliminary and initial description of the activity is as follows: "The goal of the TF is to develop a proposal to the community of the transfer of early registration IPv4 address records (ERX) from ARIN to the RIPE NCC." For a start, I'd expect the TF to review the lessons learned from the transfer of AS Number Objects, and to investigate new or different issues with the already agreed transfer of IPv4 address space objects. The necessary next steps are 1) to ask the bigger community, by way of the mailing lists, whether there are any objections against the creation of the TF 2) to work on a refinement of the mandate, tasks to perform, and the expected results 3) to agree on a schedule, set of participants and to find a coordinator. Most of the work should be done by way of exchanging email amongst the TF Partcipants. Following up on expressions of interest as received during the RIPE43 WG session, an initial list of individuals would be put onto the mailing list. [ please see at the bottom of this mail ] Of course, if you are no longer interested - just let us know. Also, if you _are_ interested to join in - but did not or could not indicate your interest in Rhodes, please get back to us asap! Assuming that there would not be a major show-stopper, could I ask the NCC to follow up with any useful info (list name, draft schedule,...) to get us going as soon as possible? Cheers, Wilfried. Initial list of TF particpants: Havard Eidnes Hank Nussbacher Gabriella Paolini Kristian Rastas Nigel Titley Ruediger Volk Wilfried Woeber _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From andrius at andrius.org Thu Oct 3 22:34:56 2002 From: andrius at andrius.org (Andrius Kasparavicius) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 22:34:56 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] important database record Message-ID: <20021003203456.GB31434@mail.kalnieciai.lt> hello, I think all should know this important record: JH914-RIPE Andrius Kasparavicius UAB "Kauneta" NOC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gert at space.net Thu Oct 3 23:43:32 2002 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 23:43:32 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Static IP addresses In-Reply-To: <1033654623.2288.1554.camel@weasel>; from hamster@korenwolf.net on Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 03:17:03PM +0100 References: <001501c26a3e$491625a0$8bcf40d5@telia.com> <20021003161228.Y80239@Space.Net> <1033654623.2288.1554.camel@weasel> Message-ID: <20021003234332.A80239@Space.Net> Hi, On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 03:17:03PM +0100, Mark Lowes wrote: > On Thu, 2002-10-03 at 15:12, Gert Doering wrote: > > The "issue" about dial-in customers is just that ISPs are usually > > unwilling to enter all their individual IP assignments into the RIPE > > database, and so it's much easier to go down the dynamic dial-in route. > > > > >From the RIPE policy standpoint, there is NO difference between > > dial-in, ADSL, cable, leased lines, and whatever technologies people > > use to hook up to the net. > > However for dialup it's generally a more effcient use of IP space to use > dynamic pools due the contention of the service (ie 20:1 modem ratios > and the like). It might be more efficient, yes. As people are doing it with ADSL connections for "home users", that are not really "always on". On the other hand, you can have dialup connections that are demand-dialled from the ISPs side if a packet for that customer arrives. Those certainly need a static IP. Nevertheless: my point is that the RIPE policies do *not* force that upon an ISP. It's their decision whether they want to do dynamic addressing or not, regardless of the technology used. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 47686 (47095) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From andrei at ripe.net Fri Oct 4 10:52:14 2002 From: andrei at ripe.net (Andrei Robachevsky) Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 10:52:14 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: creation of taskforce to support the ERX project (early registration xfer) References: <00A14E93.9393C670.24@cc.univie.ac.at> Message-ID: <3D9D56BE.8000009@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: [...] > Assuming that there would not be a major show-stopper, could I ask the > NCC to follow up with any useful info (list name, draft schedule,...) > to get us going as soon as possible? > The list, erx-tf at ripe.net, has been created with the initial list of participants. If you are interested to join in, please drop a message to Wilfried (Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at) or Leo (leo at ripe.net). You may find some background information about the project at http://www.ripe.net/db/erx.html We will send a welcome message to the list today and the proposed schedule on Monday. > Cheers, > Wilfried. > > Regards, Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC > Initial list of TF particpants: > > Havard Eidnes > Hank Nussbacher > Gabriella Paolini > Kristian Rastas > Nigel Titley > Ruediger Volk > Wilfried Woeber > > _________________________________:_____________________________________ > Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at > UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 > Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 > A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- Andrei From andrei at ripe.net Fri Oct 4 18:21:05 2002 From: andrei at ripe.net (Andrei Robachevsky) Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 18:21:05 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: creation of taskforce to support the ERX project (early registration xfer) References: <00A14E93.9393C670.24@cc.univie.ac.at> <3D9D56BE.8000009@ripe.net> Message-ID: <3D9DBFF1.2030804@ripe.net> Andrei Robachevsky wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > [...] > > We will send a welcome message to the list today and the proposed > schedule on Monday. I've just sent the welcome message to the members of the TF. Hope everyone received it. Otherwise, please contact us. Regards, Andrei Robachevsky RIPE NCC From hpholen at tiscali.no Sun Oct 6 20:15:04 2002 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 20:15:04 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform References: <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> <4.3.2.7.2.20021003103258.02403858@localhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <015101c26d64$4bb2a030$7f00a8c0@no.tiscali.com> Reading trough the final implementation report and recomendations http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/final-implementation-report-02oc t02.htm I have the following comments: >B. The structure of ICANN >(...) >It is now clear that a purely private-sector body cannot effectively carry out the ICANN mission. I would be curious to see the reasoning behind this. My personal opinion from the IP addressing area is that a purely private-sector body has indeed carried out its mission without government intervention. I am not shure government intervention would improve the processes. With that said, I still belive in transparency and bottom up processes with open participation, so individuals with the appropriate expertice from relevant government organisations should be welcomed in the process just as any other participants. >C. ICANN process As a general comment I am fairly confused on wether the processes of the two domain supporting organisations are part of ICANN and ICANNs processes or wether they are separate entities with their own responsibility for their processes. >E. Participation by Critical Entities I am curious to know what critical entities are refered to as not currently participating. >B. Board of directors I note that a Director may no longer be removed by the supporting organisation appointing that director. >C. Supporting organisations I note that with the new structure the ICANN board representatives from the NAMES side now are 2+2 board members while the addressing side appoints 2 members. regarding funds: I support the approach taken by the RIRs to fund the ASO secretariat bottom up (directly by the RIRs) rather than top down (ie first paying money to ICANN to fund the secretariat). In my oppinion this approach should be taken by all SOs. Looking forward to hear other opinions on this. Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen From hpholen at tiscali.no Sun Oct 6 21:07:31 2002 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 21:07:31 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform References: <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> <428828781.1033632178@localhost> Message-ID: <015601c26d6b$9fd6d4e0$7f00a8c0@no.tiscali.com> Reading trough another important document the proposed bylaws I have the following comments: http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/proposed-bylaws-02oct02.htm >Article I Mission & Core values I note that policy development trough Openness and Transparency are not part of the mission or core values. Transparency is treated in a separate article III >Article II I note that the board may act by a majority vote, some times of all members, but in most cases of the members present. While this is normal and sufficient for most activities I am uncertain if this provides stability enough for ICANN. There should actually be a reference here to Article XIX which requires 2/3 for alterations or amendments to the bylaws. Article XIX should in my view also require an open process for changes and amendments, this process should explicitly include some endorsment from thesupporting organisations. The rationale behind this is that in a normal corporation or organisation changing the bylaws is not within the powers of the board but rather a task for the general assembly. Thus should be with ICANN aswell. Artilce II Transparency some of the details on how to opreate a website hardly belongs in the bylaws but rather in some operating procedures. Section 5.2 Actions taken by the board shall be made public within 5 days. I am uncertain if this applies to the AC aswell ? Mayby they should ? Article IV Accountability and review and Article V Ombudsman I note that this is a fairly substantial set of roles and procedures to handle disputes etc: - and Ombudsman - reconcideration comittee of the board - Independendt review panel I whish a simpler structure could have been possible, but I guess the learnings have shown that this is necessary ? Article VI Composition of the Board. As I understand the current ICANN Bylaws there shall be no less than nine (9) and no more than nineteen (19) members of the board. Three (3) Directors selected by the Address Supporting Organization, Three (3) Directors selected by the Domain Name Supporting Organization Three (3) Directors selected by the Protocol Supporting Organization and Nine (9) at large directors. pluss the president. In the new board there will be Eight (8) voting members selected by the nomination comitee Two selected by the Address Supporting Organization Two selected by the Country-Coude Names Supporting Organisation Two selected by the Generic Names Supporting Organisation plus the president To view the shift of influence on ICANN desicions I made the following simple calculations: Old New ASO 3 16 % 2 13 % PSO 3 16 % 0 0 % Cc 0 % 2 13 % G 0 % 2 13 % Names 3 16 % Other 9 47 % 8 53 % President 1 5 % 1 7 % 19 15 My observation is that the IP addressing community direct influence is reduced from 16% of the votes on the board to 13 % While the manes community direct influence is increased from 16 to 23%. To balance the view the addressing comunity is given some influence on the selection of the other board members by a seat on the nomination comitee just as we had some influence on the election of the at large representatives in the old bylaws trough participation on equal terms with other members of the community in the election process. I think this change reflects the focus of ICANN and I can understand, even tough I do not necessarily fully agree, thosse who think this change is so bad that the addressing comunity should walk away from ICANN. As a matter of principle I personnaly do not think it is a good idea to have the CEO of a company or a corporation be a voting member of the board. The CEO should report to the board and be sresponsible for carrying out the desicions of the board and thus not be part of the desicion makers themselves. This is however not a change to the current structure, and may just as well be a cultural thing. Section 8. I am somewhat confused by this, couldn?t this be made much simpler ? Article VIII Address supporting organisation As this mainly refers to the existing MOU I have no comments other than - there is the addition of a GAC liason to the Address Council which I see no harm in. I would however raise the question on wether the AC could have a liason to the GAC in return ? - does the MOU need to be reviewed to fit better in the new Bylaws ? Article IX and X I note that while the ASO article consists of 5 parts of half a page or so, the Articles concerning the names span several pages. Most of this belong in the Bylaws or MOU of that particular supporting organisation. Bottom line from reading this is that while I personally could live with most of it I get - less feeling of a bottom-up organisation with open processes, and more the feeling of an organisation with a board making top down desicions. I know this is perhaps mainly emotional. As always I am curious to hear other opinions on this. Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen From daniel at karrenberg.net Mon Oct 7 11:22:21 2002 From: daniel at karrenberg.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 11:22:21 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <468351578.1033671701@localhost> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021003103258.02403858@localhost.ripe.net> <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> <4.3.2.7.2.20021003103258.02403858@localhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021007081654.028cfd98@localhost.ripe.net> [ This message states my personal opinion and *not* the opinion of the RIPE NCC. I realise that NCC staff commenting on controversial"political" issues in a personal capacity can be considered inappropriate. However I feel I have to speak up just *because* I personally invested a lot of energy into the RIR processes and also into the gestation of ICANN, the ASO and its processes. In other words: I think I earned the right and *have the obligation* to speak up.] Hans Petter, I just read your messages analysing the legal prose. While this is good work and highlights quite some symptoms, it does not analyse the disease. A much more clear symptom of the desease is in the latest amendment to the ICANN-USG agreement http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/agreements/amend5_09192002.htm "... ICANN agrees to perform the following activities and provide the following resources ... Work collaboratively on a global and local level to pursue formal legal agreements with the RIRs, and to achieve stable relationships that allow them to continue their technical work, while incorporating their policy-making activities into the ICANN process. ..." This clearly shows that ICANN does not want to work the way the RIRs are successfully working. ICANN has no respect for, and maybe still does not understand our long established, well working, bottom-up, transparent way of making policies. There are more symptoms of this in all areas of ICANN activity. A good example is the current "AXFR conflict" with some ccTLDs. They script for these problems is: - ICANN staff drafts or changes policies for reasons only apparent to ICANN staff and, possibly, the US Government in some cases. - ICANN board ratifies changes without discussion. THIS MEANS THAT THERE IS NO PROCESS OTHER THAN ON PAPER. - ICANN staff applies policy - 'victims' are surprised since they did not hear anything via what they thought of as their part of the "ICANN Process". - ICANN staff says: "This is policy ratified by the board, please use the 'ICANN Process' to change it again. Meanwhile just comply." THIS MEANS THAT THOSE WHO DEPEND ON ICANN FOR SOMETHING ARE SCREWED. In the particular 'AXFR conflictt' I refer to above, ICANN has deliberately jeopradised the stability of the DNS of some pretty large ccTLDs over an extended period of time. I have lost all confidence in ICANN as an organisation, the ICANN process and many of the people involved, both board and staff. I have the strong suspicion that I am not the only one. *This* is the disease: Loss of confidence. It cannot be addressed with adding paper "Core Values" and even more paper process while maintaining the level of substance at a minimum. I personally think the RIRs should *now* walk away from ICANN for better or worse. This means we have to do our home work well: - Create a process for global policy coordination. We have thes substance of it: the ASO. We just need a legal shell outside of ICANN and -maybe- some minor adaptions to the substance. - Create a process for 'process appeal', i.e. where someone can go if the global policy coordination does not follow its own rules. Maybe professional arbitrators can be used. Certainly not another politically loaded body. - Make sure that those who look at ICANN for influcene into the process find their needs sufficiently addressed by the current regional processes plus the "new" global process. I suspect that this is largely a matter of educating people. Hans Petter, imagine you had invested the time it took to analyse the ICANN generated legal prose into drafting this. I think it would have been a much better investment. We should have a very open discussion in this working group on how to proceed with address policy coordination on the global level. If the RIPE NCC, and the other RIRs, should decide to walk away from ICANN they need our full support. The RIPE NCC also needs help with doing the work outlined above together with the other RIRs. Respectfully Daniel From lyman at acm.org Mon Oct 7 20:06:57 2002 From: lyman at acm.org (Lyman Chapin) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:06:57 -0400 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <015101c26d64$4bb2a030$7f00a8c0@no.tiscali.com> References: <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> <4.3.2.7.2.20021003103258.02403858@localhost.ripe.net> <015101c26d64$4bb2a030$7f00a8c0@no.tiscali.com> Message-ID: At 8:15 PM +0200 10/6/02, Hans Petter Holen wrote: >Reading trough the final implementation report and recomendations >http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/final-implementation-report-02oc >t02.htm I have the following comments: > >>B. The structure of ICANN >>(...) >>It is now clear that a purely private-sector body cannot effectively carry >out the ICANN mission. > >I would be curious to see the reasoning behind this. My personal opinion >from the IP addressing area is that a purely private-sector body has indeed >carried out its mission without government intervention. Hans Petter, I think that this just states what should be obvious - that the structure of ICANN should include a role for governments, because it is unrealistic to expect that governments will agree to have no say in any of the areas of ICANN's mission (the ccTLDs are an example). That's not the same thing as "government intervention"; in my mind, at least, it means something like "public/private partnership." One of the objectives of the reform process is to negotiate the terms of such a partnership so as to keep ICANN as close to the private-sector ideal as possible. Stuart's original "Case for Reform" made the same point at greater length: "I have come to the conclusion that the original concept of a purely private sector body, based on consensus and consent, has been shown to be impractical. The fact that many of those critical to global coordination are still not willing to participate fully and effectively in the ICANN process is strong evidence of this fact. But I also am convinced that, for a resource as changeable and dynamic as the Internet, a traditional governmental approach as an alternative to ICANN remains a bad idea. The Internet needs effective, lightweight, and sensible global coordination in a few limited areas, allowing ample room for the innovation and change that makes this unique resource so useful and valuable." >I am not shure government intervention would improve the processes. > >With that said, I still belive in transparency and bottom up processes with >open participation, so individuals with the appropriate expertice from >relevant government organisations should be welcomed in the process just as >any other participants. I agree. > >>C. ICANN process > >As a general comment I am fairly confused on wether the processes of the two >domain supporting organisations are part of ICANN and ICANNs processes or >wether they are separate entities with their own responsibility for their >processes. The three SOs are part of ICANN; the new bylaws specify some of their processes, and leave some of them up to the Council of each SO (macro- vs. micro-management). > >E. Participation by Critical Entities > >I am curious to know what critical entities are refered to as not currently >participating. > >>B. Board of directors >I note that a Director may no longer be removed by the supporting >organisation appointing that director. I hadn't noticed that, but you're right - this is a difference between the old bylaws and the new bylaws. I don't know the reason for the change, but will find out. > >C. Supporting organisations >I note that with the new structure the ICANN board representatives from the >NAMES side now are 2+2 board members while the addressing side appoints 2 >members. Yes; separating the ccTLDs from the other TLDs creates two "names" SOs, each of which elects 2 directors. >regarding funds: I support the approach taken by the RIRs to fund the ASO >secretariat bottom up (directly by the RIRs) rather than top down (ie first >paying money to ICANN to fund the secretariat). The ERC's final report notes that the RIRs prefer this approach to funding the ASO secretariat, and I see no reason not to do it this way; certainly there is nothing in the report or the new bylaws that would prevent it. - Lyman From lyman at acm.org Mon Oct 7 21:56:00 2002 From: lyman at acm.org (Lyman Chapin) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 15:56:00 -0400 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <015601c26d6b$9fd6d4e0$7f00a8c0@no.tiscali.com> References: <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> <428828781.1033632178@localhost> <015601c26d6b$9fd6d4e0$7f00a8c0@no.tiscali.com> Message-ID: At 9:07 PM +0200 10/6/02, Hans Petter Holen wrote: >Reading trough another important document the proposed bylaws I have the >following comments: >http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/proposed-bylaws-02oct02.htm > >>Article I Mission & Core values >I note that policy development trough Openness and Transparency are not part >of the mission or core values. Hans Petter, Surely that's what this core value statement (from the list in section 2) says: "7. Employing open and transparent policy development mechanisms that (i) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (ii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process." >Transparency is treated in a separate article III > >>Article II >I note that the board may act by a majority vote, some times of all members, >but in most cases of the members present. While this is normal and >sufficient for most activities I am uncertain if this provides stability >enough for ICANN. There should actually be a reference here to Article XIX >which requires 2/3 for alterations or amendments to the bylaws. Good point - the wording is "In all other matters, except as otherwise provided in these Bylaws..."; Article XIX is an example of "except as otherwise provided," but it would be clearer to refer to it specifically in the text of Article II. >Article XIX should in my view also require an open process for changes and >amendments, this process should explicitly include some endorsment from >thesupporting organisations. > >The rationale behind this is that in a normal corporation or organisation >changing the bylaws is not within the powers of the board but rather a task >for the general assembly. Thus should be with ICANN aswell. This may reflect a difference between what is "normal" in different countries. In a normal corporation or organization in the U.S., changing the bylaws is definitely within the powers of the board. For a public company, the shareholders (the general assembly?) can force or prevent bylaw changes by removing or seating individual directors, but they have no specific power of review. However, as this issue hadn't occurred to me before you raised it, I'd be interested to hear other viewpoints on how the Board's power to amend the bylaws should be specified. >Artilce II Transparency >some of the details on how to opreate a website hardly belongs in the bylaws >but rather in some operating procedures. True; we may have gone a bit too far in this Article, as ICANN has frequently been criticized on "transparency" grounds. >Section 5.2 >Actions taken by the board shall be made public within 5 days. >I am uncertain if this applies to the AC aswell ? Mayby they should ? The new bylaws do not impose this requirement on the AC (nor does the existing MoU http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/aso-mou.html), but the AC could certainly choose to adopt such a requirement on its own account. >Article IV Accountability and review and Article V Ombudsman >I note that this is a fairly substantial set of roles and procedures to >handle disputes etc: >- and Ombudsman >- reconcideration comittee of the board >- Independendt review panel > >I whish a simpler structure could have been possible, but I guess the >learnings have shown that this is necessary ? Unfortunately, yes. Section 2(C) of the Final Report refers to our hope that the processes of the reformed ICANN will be sufficiently transparent and bottom-up that there will be fewer circumstances in which disagreements get to the point of requiring these dispute-resolution measures. While I think it is reasonable to *hope* for this, it would be naive to *expect* it. >Article VI >Composition of the Board. >As I understand the current ICANN Bylaws there shall be no less than nine >(9) and no more than nineteen (19) members of the board. > >Three (3) Directors selected by the Address Supporting Organization, >Three (3) Directors selected by the Domain Name Supporting Organization >Three (3) Directors selected by the Protocol Supporting Organization > >and Nine (9) at large directors. > >pluss the president. > >In the new board there will be >Eight (8) voting members selected by the nomination comitee >Two selected by the Address Supporting Organization >Two selected by the Country-Coude Names Supporting Organisation >Two selected by the Generic Names Supporting Organisation > plus the president > >To view the shift of influence on ICANN desicions I made the following >simple calculations: > > Old New > ASO 3 16 % 2 13 % > PSO 3 16 % 0 0 % > Cc 0 % 2 13 % > G 0 % 2 13 % > Names 3 16 % > Other 9 47 % 8 53 % > President 1 5 % 1 7 % > 19 15 > > >My observation is that the IP addressing community direct influence is >reduced from 16% of the votes on the board to 13 % While the manes community >direct influence is increased from 16 to 23%. To balance the view the >addressing comunity is given some influence on the selection of the other >board members by a seat on the nomination comitee just as we had some >influence on the election of the at large representatives in the old bylaws >trough participation on equal terms with other members of the community in >the election process. > >I think this change reflects the focus of ICANN and I can understand, even >tough I do not necessarily fully agree, thosse who think this change is so >bad that the addressing comunity should walk away from ICANN. I'm a bit confused by this. It seems to me that the interests of the addressing community and those of the names community are parallel, not overlapping, and certainly not in conflict; so this is not a "battle" in which the side with more Board members "wins." The world of names is much more controversial, and full of differing opinions, than the world of addresses. It is harder to ensure that all of the different viewpoints in the names arena are represented than it is to do this for the addressing arena. It's not "names are more important to ICANN than addresses." >As a matter of principle I personnaly do not think it is a good idea to have >the CEO of a company or a corporation be a voting member of the board. The >CEO should report to the board and be sresponsible for carrying out the >desicions of the board and thus not be part of the desicion makers >themselves. This is however not a change to the current structure, and may >just as well be a cultural thing. I realize that this is done differently in different countries. In the U.S., every board I have been on has included the CEO as a voting member. However, it is not necessary (to put it mildly) for ICANN to always follow the U.S. model, so if anyone else feels that this is something that we should change, please let me know. >Section 8. >I am somewhat confused by this, couldn?t this be made much simpler ? I don't much like it either, but we tried many different ways to describe this in simpler terms, and every one of them turned out to be either inaccurate or even harder to understand. Sigh. >Article VIII Address supporting organisation >As this mainly refers to the existing MOU I have no comments other than >- there is the addition of a GAC liason to the Address Council which I see >no harm in. I would however raise the question on wether the AC could have a >liason to the GAC in return ? This might be a good idea, but there's also the possibility that the GAC liaison could operate effectively in both directions - this is what we expect to be the case, for example, with the liaison from the TAC to the Board. It would be a good question for the AC to consider. >- does the MOU need to be reviewed to fit better in the new Bylaws ? We (the ERC) didn't see anything in the existing MoU that is in conflict with the new Bylaws (or vice versa), but it would certainly be a good idea for the AC to review both documents together. >Article IX and X >I note that while the ASO article consists of 5 parts of half a page or so, >the Articles concerning the names span several pages. Most of this belong in >the Bylaws or MOU of that particular supporting organisation. You're right - Article VIII is short because there's another document (the MoU establishing the ASO) that contains the details; Article X is long because it's the only place, for now, to put the details for the GNSO. (Presumably, Article IX will be roughly the same length as Article X when the details of the ccNSO have been worked out, unless by then we have a separate MoU in which to put them.) >Bottom line from reading this is that while I personally could live with >most of it I get >- less feeling of a bottom-up organisation with open processes, and more the >feeling of an organisation with a board making top down desicions. I know that the ERC's intention is for the reform process to produce an ICANN that is much more clearly driven bottom-up, with open processes; but I also understand that many people read the documents, and don't get that impression. It may be that the number of words necessary to be very careful and specific about what the groups at the "top" - the board, the SOs, and the other structures of ICANN - can and cannot do, and the way in which they must do it in order to be genuinely open and transparent, is just so much greater than the number of words necessary to say that "policy development is a bottom-up process that gathers input from the broadest possible range of interested parties through procedures that are open and transparent to all participants..." We tried to balance in the Final Report some of the inevitably top-heavy language of the Bylaws, but I do not think that we have been completely successful. - Lyman From david at IPRG.nokia.com Tue Oct 8 03:50:11 2002 From: david at IPRG.nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 18:50:11 -0700 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021007081654.028cfd98@localhost.ripe.net>; from daniel@karrenberg.net on Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 11:22:21AM +0200 References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021003103258.02403858@localhost.ripe.net> <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> <4.3.2.7.2.20021003103258.02403858@localhost.ripe.net> <468351578.1033671701@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20021007081 Message-ID: <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> Daniel, On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 11:22:21AM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > I personally think the RIRs should *now* > walk away from ICANN for better or worse. I agree. We should spend our time on building a new framework. A good start could indeed be by building upon the existing ASO. However, it is also important to consider the relations between the RIRs and IETF/IAB etc.. David K. --- From randy at psg.com Tue Oct 8 04:06:04 2002 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 11:06:04 +0900 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021003103258.02403858@localhost.ripe.net> <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> <468351578.1033671701@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20021007081 <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: to paraphrase from a private conversation: note that the iana function is the only formal link between the ietf and the registries, and we should be careful of what we break. the ietf does not want to start writing rir (and N other fiefdoms) consideration sections in rfcs. there are a number of different roles of the iana function, what different parties need from the iana function, and their/our respective relationships to and through the iana. the rir position seems to be to break away from the iana. the ietf position, such as it is, seems more to coordinate the non-dnso iana functions in the iana in a way well detached from icann dnso politics. randy From john at chagres.net Tue Oct 8 04:29:28 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 20:29:28 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: <000401c26e72$8f36de20$79112344@laptoy> Disagree. The RIR"s seem to think there is a world that is a) includes ICANN b) doesn't include ICANN. What IMHO, believe is that should the RIR's depart, which I'm against, this would open the oppertunity for other organizations to take control. ITU, being one of them. This would be a particularly BAD IDEA Its also interesting to note that at least one RIR hasn't really put this policy issue to its members as a propsed policy. Really good for bottom up processes :| There should be a "formal policy proposal" that goes to the membership at large on the topic of "Should the RIR's bail on IANA / ICANN". I haven't seen one. John Brown speaking personally > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-lir-wg at ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg at ripe.net] On > Behalf Of David Kessens > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 7:50 PM > To: Daniel Karrenberg > Cc: Hans Petter Holen; RIPE Local IR Working Grouo > Subject: Re: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform > > > > Daniel, > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 11:22:21AM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > > > I personally think the RIRs should *now* > > walk away from ICANN for better or worse. > > I agree. > > We should spend our time on building a new framework. > > A good start could indeed be by building upon the existing > ASO. However, it is also important to consider the relations > between the RIRs and IETF/IAB etc.. > > David K. > --- > From randy at psg.com Tue Oct 8 04:35:12 2002 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 11:35:12 +0900 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform References: <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> <000401c26e72$8f36de20$79112344@laptoy> Message-ID: > Its also interesting to note that at least one RIR hasn't really put this > policy issue to its members as a propsed policy. Really good for bottom > up processes :| some of the RIRs seem have a tradition of making policy in the back room and voting on engineering in group face-to-face meetings with very random proposals which almost all get voted 'yes'. needless to say, but i'll say it anyway, for an ietfer this seems ill-considered. randy From john at chagres.net Tue Oct 8 04:56:57 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 20:56:57 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000801c26e76$65086340$79112344@laptoy> say it isn't so..... we lost bottom up somewhere along the lines...... > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-lir-wg at ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg at ripe.net] On > Behalf Of Randy Bush > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 8:35 PM > To: John M. Brown > Cc: RIPE Local IR Working Grouop > Subject: RE: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform > > > > Its also interesting to note that at least one RIR hasn't > really put > > this policy issue to its members as a propsed policy. > Really good for > > bottom up processes :| > > some of the RIRs seem have a tradition of making policy in > the back room and voting on engineering in group face-to-face > meetings with very random proposals which almost all get voted 'yes'. > > needless to say, but i'll say it anyway, for an ietfer this > seems ill-considered. > > randy > From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Tue Oct 8 10:20:28 2002 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 10:20:28 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: References: <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> <000401c26e72$8f36de20$79112344@laptoy> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101423.0288b968@localhost.ripe.net> At 04:35 AM 10/8/2002, Randy Bush wrote: >> Its also interesting to note that at least one RIR hasn't really put this >> policy issue to its members as a propsed policy. Really good for bottom >> up processes :| > >some of the RIRs seem have a tradition of making policy in the back >room and voting on engineering in group face-to-face meetings with >very random proposals which almost all get voted 'yes'. > >needless to say, but i'll say it anyway, for an ietfer this seems >ill-considered. John, Randy, Please name horse/rider and cite chapter/verse, *then* we can discuss more meaningfully. For the RIPE NCC my impression is, that the policy process is suffering from *too much* confidence of the community in the RIR rather than too little. This tends to make all parties complacent and mistakes can happen. However this needs to be put into perspective: too much confience is a problem that is *orders of magnitude* less grave than no confidence, which is ICANN's problem. Daniel From randy at psg.com Tue Oct 8 10:42:17 2002 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 17:42:17 +0900 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform References: <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> <000401c26e72$8f36de20$79112344@laptoy> <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101423.0288b968@localhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: >> some of the RIRs seem have a tradition of making policy in the back >> room and voting on engineering in group face-to-face meetings with >> very random proposals which almost all get voted 'yes'. >> >> needless to say, but i'll say it anyway, for an ietfer this seems >> ill-considered. > > Please name horse/rider and cite chapter/verse, *then* we can discuss > more meaningfully. at kokura and rodos: o political changes with icann were not discussed anywhere except in plenary, and were done as presentations by the 'powers', not formative open discussion. o things such as golden v6 allocations for anything 'important' were discussed in a wg, voted (with almost no representation by folk who run routers, i.e. will pay the costs), and done with long laundry lists of ideas for who might deserve golden prefixes, and all were approved. it was a childish land grab. > For the RIPE NCC my impression is, that the policy process is > suffering from *too much* confidence of the community in the RIR > rather than too little. This tends to make all parties > complacent and mistakes can happen. the RIRs don't have a tradition of open fora for the political issues. heck, we did not used to have these political issues, so no surprise. but this means we need to create these processes. similarly, the world used to be O(100) engineers. technical and addressing policy was made in global consensus, often coordinated by jon postel and the iana. we've grown. we now try to distribute the process. but, in doing so, we have lost the technical core (which did things such as cidr etc) and have a large influx of well-meaning folk who, unfortunately, do not have the experience or the scars. so, no blame. but we are slipping sideways in non-good ways. randy From daniel at karrenberg.net Tue Oct 8 10:12:24 2002 From: daniel at karrenberg.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 10:12:24 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021003103258.02403858@localhost.ripe.net> <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> <468351578.1033671701@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20021007081 <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021008095812.0289ee60@localhost.karrenberg.net> Major point: In thepast I have been a strong advocate of keeping all the functions of the historical IANA together in the new structure that eventually became ICANN. From the start I, and others, have been concerned that names would poison this mix in all sorts of ways. This has happened and we seem to agree on that point. Minor point: There are not that many RFCs that would need RIR considerations. Ignored: Reference to "fiefdoms". I do not know what the RIR position is, I only speak for myself. My opinion is that it would be best that the IETF and RIR functions of IANA be taken out of ICANN because I have lost all confidence in ICANN. If this set of functions could be called "the IANA" that would be very nice; just continue to call the names stuff "ICANN" and most people's model of the world will not change an iota. Once the proper parts of the name space are delegated to "IANA" the connection points between "IANA" and "ICANN" will be quite minimal, almost non-existing. Tell me why this would not work. Daniel From daniel at karrenberg.net Tue Oct 8 10:13:53 2002 From: daniel at karrenberg.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 10:13:53 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <000401c26e72$8f36de20$79112344@laptoy> References: <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101251.02888b38@localhost.karrenberg.net> At 04:29 AM 10/8/2002, John M. Brown wrote: >What IMHO, believe is that should the RIR's depart, which >I'm against, this would open the oppertunity for other >organizations to take control. > >ITU, being one of them. This would be a particularly BAD IDEA Not unless the RIRs screw up enough to loose the confidence of their communities. Daniel From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Tue Oct 8 11:19:03 2002 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 11:19:03 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: References: <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> <000401c26e72$8f36de20$79112344@laptoy> <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101423.0288b968@localhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021008110239.028a7738@localhost.ripe.net> At 10:42 AM 10/8/2002, Randy Bush wrote: > o political changes with icann were not discussed anywhere except > in plenary, and were done as presentations by the 'powers', not > formative open discussion. I can only speak for Rhodos: As you may recall I tried to open the discussion by asking some quite inconvenient questions to Rob. But if the people there do not want to discuss what can one do. Maybe having a more BOF like setting would be good. Any bright ideas? > o things such as golden v6 allocations for anything 'important' > were discussed in a wg, voted (with almost no representation by > folk who run routers, i.e. will pay the costs), and done with > long laundry lists of ideas for who might deserve golden > prefixes, and all were approved. it was a childish land grab. Sorry I am not aware of the issue. What worries me is that I cannot find a reference to what you talk about in the minutes of either the IPv6 DB or this WG. This is bad. Can you point me there? Maybe the lack of stable discussion here is a result of the perceived lack of currnet operational importance of IPv6. In other words: Noone really cares (yet). This creates room for all sorts of ideas and little checks and balances. [Myh personal opinion about golden prefixes: When I still took part in address policy discussions I have made it quite clear that all the RIRs should do is provide a *registry* of prefixes declared special by *anyone* asking. The most a policy about this should do is to create categories of self-declared specialness, e.g. "dns-root-server", "dns-cctld-server", "address-whois-server", "www-search-engine", "isp-home-page", .... . Those rinning routers could then decide to use this registry and which categories or entries they would treat specially.] Daniel From joao at psg.com Tue Oct 8 11:37:19 2002 From: joao at psg.com (Joao Damas) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:37:19 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021008110239.028a7738@localhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > o things such as golden v6 allocations for anything 'important' > > were discussed in a wg, voted (with almost no representation by > > folk who run routers, i.e. will pay the costs), and done with > > long laundry lists of ideas for who might deserve golden > > prefixes, and all were approved. it was a childish land grab. > > > Sorry I am not aware of the issue. What worries me is that I cannot > find a reference to what you talk about in the minutes of either > the IPv6 DB or this WG. This is bad. Can you point me there? > I don't think Randy is referring to the RIPE region. In that region, I do know, however, that the discussion, which I seem to remember took place in the IPv6 wg and the LIR wg mailing lists, is difficult to follow because of the way the indexes are threaded. Someone had some comments about not being able to follow the discussion if they just clicked in the URL mentioned in the minutes. This is however only a technical glitch and the information is most certainly there and accesible to all. It may have even been corrected by now. So give it another try. > Maybe the lack of stable discussion here is a result of the perceived > lack of currnet operational importance of IPv6. In other words: > Noone really cares (yet). This creates room for all sorts of > ideas and little checks and balances. > Possibly, though I have the feeling interest in IPv6 is growing rapidly. Joao From john at chagres.net Tue Oct 8 14:22:06 2002 From: john at chagres.net (John M. Brown) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 06:22:06 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101251.02888b38@localhost.karrenberg.net> Message-ID: <000001c26ec5$593603c0$79112344@laptoy> Or gov's get concerned enough that the ITU directs its treaty bound orgs to "take over". If gov types get concerned enough they can and will pass legislation that can, and will (with the power of law) take any and all of this away. Don't believe this can happen, look at various digital rights laws. DMCA in the US for example. Bad law can and does happen, it takes years to fix and lots of money. By dumping ICANN/IANA and walking, that could be viewed as "screwed up enough" to those on Capital Hill, Brussels, etc. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-lir-wg at ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg at ripe.net] On > Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 2:14 AM > To: john at chagres.net > Cc: 'David Kessens'; 'Hans Petter Holen'; 'RIPE Local IR > Working Grouo' > Subject: RE: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform > > > At 04:29 AM 10/8/2002, John M. Brown wrote: > >What IMHO, believe is that should the RIR's depart, which > >I'm against, this would open the oppertunity for other > >organizations to take control. > > > >ITU, being one of them. This would be a particularly BAD IDEA > > Not unless the RIRs screw up enough to loose the confidence > of their communities. > > Daniel > From daniel at karrenberg.net Tue Oct 8 15:02:09 2002 From: daniel at karrenberg.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 15:02:09 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <000001c26ec5$593603c0$79112344@laptoy> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101251.02888b38@localhost.karrenberg.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021008150154.0430cf80@localhost.karrenberg.net> At 02:22 PM 10/8/2002, John M. Brown wrote: >By dumping ICANN/IANA and walking, that could be viewed as >"screwed up enough" to those on Capital Hill, Brussels, etc. Not convinced at all. Daniel From david at IPRG.nokia.com Tue Oct 8 21:01:33 2002 From: david at IPRG.nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 12:01:33 -0700 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101423.0288b968@localhost.ripe.net>; from Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net on Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 10:20:28AM +0200 References: <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> <000401c26e72$8f36de20$79112344@laptoy> <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101423.0288b968@localhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20021008120133.B392@iprg.nokia.com> Daniel, On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 10:20:28AM +0200, ext Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > For the RIPE NCC my impression is, that the policy process is suffering > from *too much* confidence of the community in the RIR rather than too little. > This tends to make all parties complacent and mistakes can happen. The problem seems to be more related to that fact that most members of the RIRs have dayjobs and they increasingly care about running their own businesses. They have very little spare time to participate in the policy making process so they have very little choice but to accept the policy as proposed by the RIR because they don't have the resources to come up with their own proposals. David K. --- From david at IPRG.nokia.com Tue Oct 8 21:07:07 2002 From: david at IPRG.nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 12:07:07 -0700 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021008110239.028a7738@localhost.ripe.net>; from Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net on Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 11:19:03AM +0200 References: <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> <000401c26e72$8f36de20$79112344@laptoy> <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101423.0288b968@localhost.ripe.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20021008110239.028a7738@localhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20021008120707.C392@iprg.nokia.com> On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 11:19:03AM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > randy wrote: > > o things such as golden v6 allocations for anything 'important' > > were discussed in a wg, voted (with almost no representation by > > folk who run routers, i.e. will pay the costs), and done with > > long laundry lists of ideas for who might deserve golden > > prefixes, and all were approved. it was a childish land grab. > > Sorry I am not aware of the issue. What worries me is that I cannot > find a reference to what you talk about in the minutes of either > the IPv6 DB or this WG. This is bad. Can you point me there? Just for the record: no such things happened in the ipv6 wg at the last RIPE meeting. It's the lir wg who sets policy. David K. --- From david at IPRG.nokia.com Tue Oct 8 21:10:52 2002 From: david at IPRG.nokia.com (David Kessens) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 12:10:52 -0700 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021008110239.028a7738@localhost.ripe.net>; from Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net on Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 11:19:03AM +0200 References: <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> <000401c26e72$8f36de20$79112344@laptoy> <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101423.0288b968@localhost.ripe.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20021008110239.028a7738@localhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20021008121051.D392@iprg.nokia.com> Daniel, On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 11:19:03AM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > At 10:42 AM 10/8/2002, Randy Bush wrote: > > o political changes with icann were not discussed anywhere except > > in plenary, and were done as presentations by the 'powers', not > > formative open discussion. > > I can only speak for Rhodos: As you may recall I tried to open > the discussion by asking some quite inconvenient questions to > Rob. But if the people there do not want to discuss what can > one do. Maybe having a more BOF like setting would be good. > Any bright ideas? It seems that our good old mailing lists didn't loose any of it's capability to allow people to discuss this very topic in an extremly public place. David K. --- From hpholen at tiscali.no Tue Oct 8 21:45:31 2002 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 21:45:31 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101423.0288b968@localhost.ripe.net> References: <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> <000401c26e72$8f36de20$79112344@laptoy> <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101423.0288b968@localhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <9601906.1034113531@[192.168.0.128]> > > For the RIPE NCC my impression is, that the policy process is suffering > from *too much* confidence of the community in the RIR rather than too > little. This tends to make all parties complacent and mistakes can happen. My diagnosis is that there is to little participation from the community. This is not only the RIPE NCCs fault. This could be a community failiure, process failiure, or even failiure of the chair of this wg or something else. -hph From hpholen at tiscali.no Tue Oct 8 21:53:30 2002 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 21:53:30 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021003103258.02403858@localhost.ripe.net> <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> <468351578.1033671701@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20021007081 <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: <10081125.1034114010@[192.168.0.128]> --On 8. oktober 2002 11:06 +0900 Randy Bush wrote: > to paraphrase from a private conversation: > > note that the iana function is the only formal link between the > ietf and the registries, and we should be careful of what we break. > the ietf does not want to start writing rir (and N other fiefdoms) > consideration sections in rfcs. So a design criteria for whatever scenario we are looking at should be to maintain this link. (ie co-organisation of the IETF-IANA function and the RIR-IANA function. > there are a number of different roles of the iana function, what > different parties need from the iana function, and their/our > respective relationships to and through the iana. the rir position > seems to be to break away from the iana. the ietf position, such > as it is, seems more to coordinate the non-dnso iana functions in > the iana in a way well detached from icann dnso politics. I think the root of the concern is the strong link between the percived de facto policy makers (ICANN staff) and the IANA staff. I belive this concern is only true if it is in fact so that ICANN staff makes policy desicions (or suggests them to the board who ratifies them without public process) The cause for this concern is that while some of us see something as a policy desicion others don't. The very fundamental question is perhaps: - Are there any desicions at all to be taken by ICANN which does not require an open transparent process ? Looking carefully at that question I realise that it can be generalized: - Are there any desicions at all to be taken by X which does not require an open transparent process ? where X = {ICANN, RIPE NCC, ARIN, APNIC, IETF, ASO, ...} and this it is where it gets interesting: - the concern is exactly the same at both sides of the ICANN vs RIR discussion... -hph From hpholen at tiscali.no Tue Oct 8 22:10:50 2002 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 22:10:50 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <20021008120707.C392@iprg.nokia.com> References: <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> <000401c26e72$8f36de20$79112344@laptoy> <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101423.0288b968@localhost.ripe.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20021008110239.028a7738@localhost.ripe.net> <20021008120707.C392@iprg.nokia.com> Message-ID: <11120812.1034115050@[192.168.0.128]> --On 8. oktober 2002 12:07 -0700 David Kessens wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 11:19:03AM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >> >> randy wrote: >> > o things such as golden v6 allocations for anything 'important' >> > were discussed in a wg, voted (with almost no representation by >> > folk who run routers, i.e. will pay the costs), and done with >> > long laundry lists of ideas for who might deserve golden >> > prefixes, and all were approved. it was a childish land grab. >> >> Sorry I am not aware of the issue. What worries me is that I cannot >> find a reference to what you talk about in the minutes of either >> the IPv6 DB or this WG. This is bad. Can you point me there? > > Just for the record: no such things happened in the ipv6 wg at the > last RIPE meeting. It's the lir wg who sets policy. The action from the lir-wg on the NCC was: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-43/presentations/ripe43-plen ary-lir/sld008.html 43.4 NCC Continue the process to move the 6bone under the framework of the RIRs Maybe this was not clear enough but this is in my opinion (and this is perhaps a place were my opinion counts :-) NOT a policy decision , but an action on the NCC to continue the process already started. I would expect a complete policy proposal to be presented to go to the final policy approval process once all concerns were settled. I'll make a note of labeling policy decision different from work in progress actions in the future. Regards, Hans Petter Holen lir-wg Chair From hpholen at tiscali.no Tue Oct 8 23:00:57 2002 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 23:00:57 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: References: <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> <428828781.1033632178@localhost> <015601c26d6b$9fd6d4e0$7f00a8c0@no.tiscali.com> Message-ID: <14127875.1034118057@[192.168.0.128]> Lyman, some comments to a selection of your comments; --On 7. oktober 2002 15:56 -0400 Lyman Chapin wrote: > At 9:07 PM +0200 10/6/02, Hans Petter Holen wrote: >> Reading trough another important document the proposed bylaws I have the >> following comments: >> http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/proposed-bylaws-02oct02.htm >> >>> Article I Mission & Core values >> I note that policy development trough Openness and Transparency are not >> part of the mission or core values. > > Hans Petter, > > Surely that's what this core value statement (from the list in section 2) > says: > > "7. Employing open and transparent policy development mechanisms that (i) > promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (ii) ensure > that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development > process." You are right, I can only appologise for not catching that. Maybe there is just to many core values to catch my eye. ((We recently did a management training camp in my company, and the trainer riped appart our mission and core values statement and we rebuild from scratch a handful of core values forming an easy to remember acronym. with one liners to follow. While this is much more form than content, it may be something to think trough: how to make a T-shirt with ICANNs mission and Core values.)) >> Article XIX should in my view also require an open process for changes >> and amendments, this process should explicitly include some endorsment >> from thesupporting organisations. >> >> The rationale behind this is that in a normal corporation or organisation >> changing the bylaws is not within the powers of the board but rather a >> task for the general assembly. Thus should be with ICANN aswell. > > This may reflect a difference between what is "normal" in different > countries. My point excactly, and perhaps some more influence of European non profit organisations would really be the way to look rather than US corporate law. What we are building is a coop like rather than a for profit multi-national. >In a normal corporation or organization in the U.S., changing > the bylaws is definitely within the powers of the board. In the University Symphony Orcestra, Canoe Club, Folk Dance society etc etc it would be unheard to have the board have powers like this. Emotionaly I would use as strong words as un-democratic and top-down on creations like this. > For a public company, the shareholders (the general assembly?) can force or prevent > bylaw changes by removing or seating individual directors, but they have > no specific power of review. However, as this issue hadn't occurred to me > before you raised it, I'd be interested to hear other viewpoints on how > the Board's power to amend the bylaws should be specified. Not so in Norway: Lov om allmennaksjeselskaper (allmennaksjeloven). http://www.lovdata.no/all/nl-19970613-045.html 5-18. Vedtektsendring (1) Beslutning om ? endre vedtektene treffes av generalforsamlingen, hvis ikke noe annet er fastsatt i lov. Beslutningen krever tilslutning fra minst to tredeler s? vel av de avgitte stemmer som av den aksjekapital som er representert p? generalforsamlingen. (Desicion to change the bylaws are made by the general assembly unless otherwise stated by law. Changes requres at least 2/3rds of the votes from the share holder capital represented at the meeting.) (2) Beslutning om vedtektsendring som forringer en hel aksjeklasses rett, m? tiltres av eiere av to tredeler av den representerte kapital i denne klassen. Dessuten m? minst halvdelen av stemmene fra de aksjeeiere som ikke eier aksjer i noen annen klasse, v?re avgitt for forslaget. (3) I vedtektene kan det fastsettes strengere flertallskrav enn det som f?lger av paragrafen her. So under Norwegian law ICANN as a public shareholder company would have to change this. >> Artilce II Transparency >> some of the details on how to opreate a website hardly belongs in the >> bylaws but rather in some operating procedures. > > True; we may have gone a bit too far in this Article, as ICANN has > frequently been criticized on "transparency" grounds. :-) >> As a matter of principle I personnaly do not think it is a good idea to >> have the CEO of a company or a corporation be a voting member of the >> board. The CEO should report to the board and be sresponsible for >> carrying out the desicions of the board and thus not be part of the >> desicion makers themselves. This is however not a change to the current >> structure, and may just as well be a cultural thing. > > I realize that this is done differently in different countries. In the > U.S., every board I have been on has included the CEO as a voting member. The storry I hear from my collegues who keep an eye on the US corporate life tells me that some of the most recent "incidents" in the US have made people think that maybe this is not such a good idea after all. Maybe the CEO should indeed report to somebody who can oversee and ask nasty questions from time to time. > However, it is not necessary (to put it mildly) for ICANN to always > follow the U.S. model, so if anyone else feels that this is something > that we should change, please let me know. I am also eager to hear if it is just me who feels this way. -hph From randy at psg.com Wed Oct 9 02:02:11 2002 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 09:02:11 +0900 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021003103258.02403858@localhost.ripe.net> <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> <468351578.1033671701@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20021007081 <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> <10081125.1034114010@[192.168.0.128]> Message-ID: > I think the root of the concern is the strong link between the percived de > facto policy makers (ICANN staff) and the IANA staff. indeed. and it is not at all clear any link is needed. > The very fundamental question is perhaps: > - Are there any desicions at all to be taken by ICANN which does not > require an open transparent process ? yes. details of dealing with technical matters and disputes where private information is exchanged. e.g. occasionally confidential data are disclosed for protocol number allocations. jon postel preferred not to air the internal squabbles of country X over fools who thought cctld admin was a power, as opposed to responsibility. randy From dolderer at denic.de Tue Oct 8 22:54:31 2002 From: dolderer at denic.de (Sabine Dolderer/Denic) Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 22:54:31 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform Message-ID: Hello, maybe I can come in the debate with some practical experiences from the ccTLD side as we are suffering some problems since some time. On 08.10.2002 21:53 Hans Petter Holen wrote: > > > > --On 8. oktober 2002 11:06 +0900 Randy Bush wrote: > > > to paraphrase from a private conversation: > > > > note that the iana function is the only formal link between the > > ietf and the registries, and we should be careful of what we break. > > the ietf does not want to start writing rir (and N other fiefdoms) > > consideration sections in rfcs. > > So a design criteria for whatever scenario we are looking at should be to > maintain this link. (ie co-organisation of the IETF-IANA function and the > RIR-IANA function. > > > there are a number of different roles of the iana function, what > > different parties need from the iana function, and their/our > > respective relationships to and through the iana. the rir position > > seems to be to break away from the iana. the ietf position, such > > as it is, seems more to coordinate the non-dnso iana functions in > > the iana in a way well detached from icann dnso politics. > > I think the root of the concern is the strong link between the percived de > facto policy makers (ICANN staff) and the IANA staff. > > I belive this concern is only true if it is in fact so that ICANN staff > makes policy desicions (or suggests them to the board who ratifies them > without public process) that is unfortunately done on a regular basis at least in the ccTLD area and you should be aware that unless there are no contractual safegards they may try it for the RIRs. > > The cause for this concern is that while some of us see something as a > policy desicion others don't. > > The very fundamental question is perhaps: > - Are there any desicions at all to be taken by ICANN which does not > require an open transparent process ? In the domain area ICANN have took a lot of decisions in the past without using an open and transparent process even when ccTLDs told them not to do so and - and - that was the biggest surprise to me - nobody - including the ICANN board - cares. It starts with the complete ignorance in how ccTLDs want to organize themselves, unilateral changes in the IANA policies, blocking of necesarry technical changes, developing a new CC-structure wihin ICANN without taking into account the work of the ccSO ... > > Looking carefully at that question I realise that it can be generalized: > - Are there any desicions at all to be taken by X which does not require an > open transparent process ? > > where X = {ICANN, RIPE NCC, ARIN, APNIC, IETF, ASO, ...} > > and this it is where it gets interesting: the question should be if X=ICANN thinks they don't need an open & transparent process has Y= (RIPE NCC, ARIN, APNIC, IETF, ASO, ...) the possibility to stop them to implement policies just by doing. > - the concern is exactly the same at both sides of the ICANN vs RIR > discussion... > > -hph > > Sabine -- Sabine Dolderer DENIC eG Wiesenh?ttenplatz 26 D-60329 Frankfurt eMail: Sabine.Dolderer at denic.de Fon: +49 69 27235 0 Fax: +49 69 27235 235 From peter.juul at uni-c.dk Wed Oct 9 15:57:54 2002 From: peter.juul at uni-c.dk (Peter B. Juul) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 15:57:54 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses Message-ID: <20021009155754.I18047@uni-c.dk> This may not be the best list for posting this question in, but I've been unable to figure out which one to use instead. Please forgive me. In a current project a number of addresses is needed for closed IP communication between a number of institutions. The logical choice for this is some RFC1918-space, but certain people fear that no matter what 1918-addresses we may choose they may be in use internally in the involved networks and thus unavailable to this project. My knee-jerk response as a somewhat conscientious networker is "So what? We'll just have to pick some addresses not presently in use. There should be plenty. Yes, it will take coordination, but that's life." Someone else, however, picked up on the fact that there's a large number of addresses just marked "reserved" by IANA, and they probably are not in use, so why don't we just grab e.g. 82.0.0.0/8? I really want to avoid this and stay within the RFC1918-nets, but I need a good response. Could someone explain to me what the nets marked "reserved" in for example http://kmserv.com/testbed/ip-space.txt are expected to be used for? Special stuff or RIR address space? Peter B. Juul, Uni?C (PBJ255-RIPE) From daniel.rasmussen at wcom.com Wed Oct 9 17:24:23 2002 From: daniel.rasmussen at wcom.com (Daniel N. Rasmussen) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 17:24:23 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses Message-ID: <4388D217D118D31184E50008C70DEF7E03531C43@cpnexch1.cph.dk.uu.net> Hi Peter, > Could someone explain to me what the nets marked "reserved" > in for example > http://kmserv.com/testbed/ip-space.txt are expected to be > used for? Special stuff or RIR address space? Well, looking at the above link and comparing it to the most recent one (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space), I would say the latter. Eg. 068-079/8 IANA - Reserved Sep 81 now 068/8 ARIN Jun 01 069/8 ARIN Aug 02 070-079/8 IANA - Reserved Sep 81 > Peter B. Juul, > Uni?C (PBJ255-RIPE) Regards, Daniel Rasmussen dk.uunet From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Oct 9 17:45:50 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:45:50 -0500 Subject: [lir-wg] Paying Market Value for Address Space Leases...pay ICANN $1,7476,267 *each year* for EACH /8. References: <4388D217D118D31184E50008C70DEF7E03531C43@cpnexch1.cph.dk.uu.net> Message-ID: <02ab01c26faa$f1bc5410$0100a8c0@repligate> ISPs sell (lease) a "virtual product" called an IP address for $10 to $15 per month. ARIN should get one month's revenue on an annual basis. ICANN should get one month's revenue on an annual basis. ==== A /8 is 16,777,216 such products. At an average of $12.50 per month, that is $209,715,200 from the ISP to ARIN each year. ARIN can then pay ICANN $1,7476,267 *each year* for EACH /8. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 063/8 ARIN Apr 97 064/8 ARIN Jul 99 065/8 ARIN Jul 00 066/8 ARIN Jul 00 067/8 ARIN May 01 068/8 ARIN Jun 01 069/8 ARIN Aug 02 199/8 ARIN - North America May 93 200/8 ARIN - Central and South America May 93 204/8 ARIN - North America Mar 94 205/8 ARIN - North America Mar 94 206/8 ARIN - North America Apr 95 207/8 ARIN - North America Nov 95 208/8 ARIN - North America Apr 96 209/8 ARIN - North America Jun 96 216/8 ARIN - North America Apr 98 ===== Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.ietf.com http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Oct 9 17:48:37 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 10:48:37 -0500 Subject: [lir-wg] Correction..pay ICANN $17,476,267 *each year* for EACH /8. Message-ID: <02b101c26fab$558fbf90$0100a8c0@repligate> Correction..pay ICANN $17,476,267 *each year* for EACH /8. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fleming" To: Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 10:45 AM Subject: Paying Market Value for Address Space Leases...pay ICANN $1,7476,267 *each year* for EACH /8. > ISPs sell (lease) a "virtual product" called an IP address for $10 to $15 per month. > > ARIN should get one month's revenue on an annual basis. > > ICANN should get one month's revenue on an annual basis. > ==== > > A /8 is 16,777,216 such products. At an average of $12.50 per month, that is > $209,715,200 from the ISP to ARIN each year. > > ARIN can then pay ICANN $1,7476,267 *each year* for EACH /8. > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > 063/8 ARIN Apr 97 > 064/8 ARIN Jul 99 > 065/8 ARIN Jul 00 > 066/8 ARIN Jul 00 > 067/8 ARIN May 01 > 068/8 ARIN Jun 01 > 069/8 ARIN Aug 02 > 199/8 ARIN - North America May 93 > 200/8 ARIN - Central and South America May 93 > 204/8 ARIN - North America Mar 94 > 205/8 ARIN - North America Mar 94 > 206/8 ARIN - North America Apr 95 > 207/8 ARIN - North America Nov 95 > 208/8 ARIN - North America Apr 96 > 209/8 ARIN - North America Jun 96 > 216/8 ARIN - North America Apr 98 > ===== > > > Jim Fleming > 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... > http://www.ietf.com > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt > http://ipv8.dyndns.tv > http://ipv8.dyns.cx > http://ipv8.no-ip.com > http://ipv8.no-ip.biz > http://ipv8.no-ip.info > http://ipv8.myip.us > http://ipv8.dyn.ee > http://ipv8.community.net.au > > From axel.pawlik at ripe.net Thu Oct 10 00:08:27 2002 From: axel.pawlik at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:08:27 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] RIR Blueprint for Evolution and Reform of Internet Address Management Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20021009175252.02a08688@localhost> Dear all, The Regional Internet Registries (RIR) have published a document entitled, "RIR Blueprint for Evolution and Reform of Internet Address Management." This document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/nrr-blueprint-20021009.html The RIRs have also sent this document to the Chair of the ICANN Board, the Chair of the ICANN Evolution and Reform Committee, and the ICANN President and CEO. The RIRs welcome feedback from the Internet addressing community on the contents of this document. To facilitate discussion focused on this document, a dedicated mailing list has been established and is open to all interested parties. Subscription information for the NRR-Blueprint mailing list is available at: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html All comments sent to the NRR-Blueprint mailing list will be publicly archived at the following location. http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/nrr-blueprint/index.html kind regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC From lyman at acm.org Thu Oct 10 02:16:10 2002 From: lyman at acm.org (Lyman Chapin) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 20:16:10 -0400 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <14127875.1034118057@[192.168.0.128]> References: <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> <428828781.1033632178@localhost> <015601c26d6b$9fd6d4e0$7f00a8c0@no.tiscali.com> <14127875.1034118057@[192.168.0.128]> Message-ID: >You are right, I can only appologise for not catching that. Maybe >there is just to many core values to catch my eye. ((We recently did >a management training camp in my company, and the trainer riped >appart our mission and core values statement and we rebuild from >scratch a handful of core values forming an easy to remember >acronym. with one liners to follow. While this is much more form >than content, it may be something to think trough: how to make a >T-shirt with ICANNs mission and Core values.)) Hans Petter, Yes, but who would be brave enough to wear such a T-shirt? :-) >My point excactly, and perhaps some more influence of European non >profit organisations would really be the way to look rather than US >corporate law. > >What we are building is a coop like rather than a for profit multi-national. This is a good point; one could argue that too many of ICANN's structures and processes have been developed by analogy to U.S. corporate models, and that we should look to other examples. >>In a normal corporation or organization in the U.S., changing >>the bylaws is definitely within the powers of the board. > >In the University Symphony Orcestra, Canoe Club, Folk Dance society >etc etc it would be unheard to have the board have powers like this. > >Emotionaly I would use as strong words as un-democratic and top-down >on creations like this. Maybe the right way to do this is to say that the Board has the power to change the bylaws and articles of incorporation (as a legal matter of incorporation, which is currently in California), but that such a change must be treated as a policy matter like any other, requiring review and public comment from the community. In fact, that's what we're doing with the proposed bylaw changes now - the process of public discussion and comment has been going on since last February. What the Board votes on in Shanghai will be very different, as a result of this period of public review and debate, than if the Board (or the ERC) just sat down and decided, by themselves, what the new bylaws should be. >>I realize that this is done differently in different countries. In the >>U.S., every board I have been on has included the CEO as a voting member. > >The storry I hear from my collegues who keep an eye on the US >corporate life tells me that some of the most recent "incidents" in >the US have made people think that maybe this is not such a good >idea after all. Maybe the CEO should indeed report to somebody who >can oversee and ask nasty questions from time to time. OK, that was too easy...sometimes its a real handicap to be "from the U.S." The ICANN CEO definitely reports to and is subordinate to the Board. It's not the same as complete separation, but because the CEO is a voting member of the Board *ex officio*, he or she wears two hats that are in practice distinguishable - the CEO hat, and the Board member hat. But I agree that we should consider other models for how the CEO and the Board should be related. - Lyman From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Oct 10 02:50:13 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 19:50:13 -0500 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform References: <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> <428828781.1033632178@localhost> <015601c26d6b$9fd6d4e0$7f00a8c0@no.tiscali.com> <14127875.1034118057@[192.168.0.128]> Message-ID: <04bf01c26ff6$fe59c850$0100a8c0@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lyman Chapin" > > > >Emotionaly I would use as strong words as un-democratic and top-down > >on creations like this. > > Maybe the right way to do this is to say that the Board has the power > to change the bylaws and articles of incorporation (as a legal matter > of incorporation, which is currently in California), but that such a > change must be treated as a policy matter like any other, requiring > review and public comment from the community. In fact, that's what > we're doing with the proposed bylaw changes now - the process of > public discussion and comment has been going on since last February. Reform and changing the bylaws, was a self-manufactured smoke-screen to distract people while the .ORG re-delegation was being done behind the scenes and while the U.S. Government Department of Commerce extension was being done behind the scenes. As predicted, the "Reform Process" captured the imagination of the new, clueless, U.S. DOC employees, and they rubber-stamped a renewal like robots. Now that the smoke has cleared, people are saying, "Oh, now what ? We better generate a lot of revenue, because that is what the U.S. Government wants." That was about the only substantive comment the U.S. DOC made, they said they wanted ICANN to be well-funded. The best way to do that is to start charging ALL customers the same for IP address space leasing. ARIN and ICANN are corporations subject to U.S. laws. RIPE and APNIC may be under ARIN as is the case with LACNIC. That can be transparent to ICANN, above ARIN. http://lacnic.net/en/transition.html http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space U.S. companies must be consistent in their charging and charge rates based on market values to avoid concerns about dumping at below cost or cross-subsidies and bartering, where certain select vendors pay nothing or less because of insider relationships, as opposed to published, volume agreements that are available to all customers. Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.ietf.com http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Thu Oct 10 10:59:01 2002 From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:59:01 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses Message-ID: >In a current project a number of addresses is needed for closed IP >communication between a number of institutions. That is an internetwork, often called an internet. The Internet Protocol (IP) was invented specifically for this purpose. >The logical choice for >this is some RFC1918-space, but certain people fear that no matter what >1918-addresses we may choose they may be in use internally in the involved >networks and thus unavailable to this project. Those people are right. The logical choice for IP addresses on an internet is to use addresses from the RIR. It doesn't matter whether this internet is connected to the Internet or not. >Someone else, however, picked up on the fact that there's a large number >of addresses just marked "reserved" by IANA, and they probably are not in >use, so why don't we just grab e.g. 82.0.0.0/8? Because all of the organizations in your internet will also be connected to the Internet as well. When the 82/8 space starts to be used on the Internet, each organization will have to deal with routing and/or reachability issues in their internal networks. In order to avoid this kind of mess, the IETF set up the IANA so that organizations building TCP/IP networks could register for globally unique IP addresses. Even though the mechanisms have changed since then (CIDR and the RIRs) the basic principle still holds. There is no requirement that an organization must allow everyone to access their network in order to justify globally registered IP space. It is better for you to register the number of addresses that you actually need rather than hijack the entire 82/8 range. -- Michael Dillon From carsten at ripe.net Thu Oct 10 00:44:44 2002 From: carsten at ripe.net (Carsten Schiefner) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:44:44 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform References: <305762843.1032911821@[192.168.0.128]> <428828781.1033632178@localhost> <015601c26d6b$9fd6d4e0$7f00a8c0@no.tiscali.com> <14127875.1034118057@[192.168.0.128]> Message-ID: <3DA4B15B.FD3C6C92@ripe.net> Hans Petter, Lyman - Hans Petter Holen wrote: > --On 7. oktober 2002 15:56 -0400 Lyman Chapin wrote: > > For a public company, the shareholders (the general assembly?) can > > force or prevent bylaw changes by removing or seating individual > > directors, but they have no specific power of review. However, as > > this issue hadn't occurred to me before you raised it, I'd be > > interested to hear other viewpoints on how > > the Board's power to amend the bylaws should be specified. > > Not so in Norway: > Lov om allmennaksjeselskaper (allmennaksjeloven). > http://www.lovdata.no/all/nl-19970613-045.html > > [...] > (Desicion to change the bylaws are made by the general assembly unless > otherwise stated by law. Changes requres at least 2/3rds of the votes > from the share holder capital represented at the meeting.) > > So under Norwegian law ICANN as a public shareholder company would > have to change this. that is _exactly_ how changes to the bylaws would have to happen in Germany as well; at least for co-operatives. Regards, Carsten (speaking personally, not on behalf of the RIPE NCC) From webmaster at ripe.net Thu Oct 10 12:26:30 2002 From: webmaster at ripe.net (RIPE NCC WebMaster) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 12:26:30 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Mailing List Software Migration Message-ID: <200210101026.g9AAQUMG010630@birch.ripe.net> Dear Mailing List Subscriber, The RIPE NCC will change its mailing list software from "majordomo" to "mailman" on 17 October 2002. The new mailing list software will give users more options to manage their subscriptions to the RIPE and RIPE NCC mailing lists. Additionally, this change is being made to ensure stability and continuity of mailing list management and archiving. The new mailing list software will give users a number of options using a web interface: - Subscribing and Unsubscribing to mailing lists - Reviewing general information about the mailing lists - Viewing subscriptions to mailing lists - Temporarily disabling mail delivery - Choosing between regular and digests of mailing list postings - Acknowledgements to postings The web interface will be located at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/mailman/ As well as using the web interface, mailing list users can manage their subscription and retrieve information by using an e-mail client. Further details on this are available at the above URL. Please note that if mailing list users are already subscribed to one or more mailing lists, they do not have to take any action. Messages can still be sent to the regular mailing lists addresses and subscriptions will not have to be re-confirmed. If you have any questions about this migration, please feel free to send an e-mail to Kind Regards, Jeroen Bet RIPE NCC Mailing List Moderation From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Oct 10 02:50:13 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (JimFleming at ameritech.net) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:50:13 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform Message-ID: <04bf01c26ff6$fe59c850$0100a8c0@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lyman Chapin" > > > >Emotionaly I would use as strong words as un-democratic and top-down > >on creations like this. > > Maybe the right way to do this is to say that the Board has the power > to change the bylaws and articles of incorporation (as a legal matter > of incorporation, which is currently in California), but that such a > change must be treated as a policy matter like any other, requiring > review and public comment from the community. In fact, that's what > we're doing with the proposed bylaw changes now - the process of > public discussion and comment has been going on since last February. Reform and changing the bylaws, was a self-manufactured smoke-screen to distract people while the .ORG re-delegation was being done behind the scenes and while the U.S. Government Department of Commerce extension was being done behind the scenes. As predicted, the "Reform Process" captured the imagination of the new, clueless, U.S. DOC employees, and they rubber-stamped a renewal like robots. Now that the smoke has cleared, people are saying, "Oh, now what ? We better generate a lot of revenue, because that is what the U.S. Government wants." That was about the only substantive comment the U.S. DOC made, they said they wanted ICANN to be well-funded. The best way to do that is to start charging ALL customers the same for IP address space leasing. ARIN and ICANN are corporations subject to U.S. laws. RIPE and APNIC may be under ARIN as is the case with LACNIC. That can be transparent to ICANN, above ARIN. http://lacnic.net/en/transition.html http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space U.S. companies must be consistent in their charging and charge rates based on market values to avoid concerns about dumping at below cost or cross-subsidies and bartering, where certain select vendors pay nothing or less because of insider relationships, as opposed to published, volume agreements that are available to all customers. Jim Fleming 2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...IPv16 is even closer... http://www.ietf.com http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au #*************************************************************************** # # Dit e-mailbericht met eventuele attachments is uitsluitend bestemd voor de # geadresseerde(n) en bevat mogelijk vertrouwelijke gegevens en/of is # beschermd door intellectuele eigendomsrechten. Bent u niet de # geadresseerde, neemt u dan zo spoedig mogelijk contact op met de afzender # en verzoeken wij u het e-mailbericht en eventuele attachments van uw # computer te verwijderen. Elk gebruik van de inhoud van dit e-mailbericht # en eventuele attachments (waaronder verveelvoudiging, verspreiding of het # anderzins openbaar maken in welke vorm dan ook) door andere personen dan # de bedoelde geadresseerden is verboden. De weergegeven mening is puur # persoonlijk en hoeft niet noodzakelijk over een te komen met die van # Enertel. Enertel is niet aansprakelijk voor de inhoud van dit # e-mailbericht en eventuele attachments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Thu Oct 10 10:59:01 2002 From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:59:01 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses Message-ID: >In a current project a number of addresses is needed for closed IP >communication between a number of institutions. That is an internetwork, often called an internet. The Internet Protocol (IP) was invented specifically for this purpose. >The logical choice for >this is some RFC1918-space, but certain people fear that no matter what >1918-addresses we may choose they may be in use internally in the involved >networks and thus unavailable to this project. Those people are right. The logical choice for IP addresses on an internet is to use addresses from the RIR. It doesn't matter whether this internet is connected to the Internet or not. >Someone else, however, picked up on the fact that there's a large number >of addresses just marked "reserved" by IANA, and they probably are not in >use, so why don't we just grab e.g. 82.0.0.0/8? Because all of the organizations in your internet will also be connected to the Internet as well. When the 82/8 space starts to be used on the Internet, each organization will have to deal with routing and/or reachability issues in their internal networks. In order to avoid this kind of mess, the IETF set up the IANA so that organizations building TCP/IP networks could register for globally unique IP addresses. Even though the mechanisms have changed since then (CIDR and the RIRs) the basic principle still holds. There is no requirement that an organization must allow everyone to access their network in order to justify globally registered IP space. It is better for you to register the number of addresses that you actually need rather than hijack the entire 82/8 range. -- Michael Dillon #*************************************************************************** # # Dit e-mailbericht met eventuele attachments is uitsluitend bestemd voor de # geadresseerde(n) en bevat mogelijk vertrouwelijke gegevens en/of is # beschermd door intellectuele eigendomsrechten. Bent u niet de # geadresseerde, neemt u dan zo spoedig mogelijk contact op met de afzender # en verzoeken wij u het e-mailbericht en eventuele attachments van uw # computer te verwijderen. Elk gebruik van de inhoud van dit e-mailbericht # en eventuele attachments (waaronder verveelvoudiging, verspreiding of het # anderzins openbaar maken in welke vorm dan ook) door andere personen dan # de bedoelde geadresseerden is verboden. De weergegeven mening is puur # persoonlijk en hoeft niet noodzakelijk over een te komen met die van # Enertel. Enertel is niet aansprakelijk voor de inhoud van dit # e-mailbericht en eventuele attachments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Michael.Dillon at radianz.com Thu Oct 10 10:59:01 2002 From: Michael.Dillon at radianz.com (Michael.Dillon at radianz.com) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:59:01 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses Message-ID: >In a current project a number of addresses is needed for closed IP >communication between a number of institutions. That is an internetwork, often called an internet. The Internet Protocol (IP) was invented specifically for this purpose. >The logical choice for >this is some RFC1918-space, but certain people fear that no matter what >1918-addresses we may choose they may be in use internally in the involved >networks and thus unavailable to this project. Those people are right. The logical choice for IP addresses on an internet is to use addresses from the RIR. It doesn't matter whether this internet is connected to the Internet or not. >Someone else, however, picked up on the fact that there's a large number >of addresses just marked "reserved" by IANA, and they probably are not in >use, so why don't we just grab e.g. 82.0.0.0/8? Because all of the organizations in your internet will also be connected to the Internet as well. When the 82/8 space starts to be used on the Internet, each organization will have to deal with routing and/or reachability issues in their internal networks. In order to avoid this kind of mess, the IETF set up the IANA so that organizations building TCP/IP networks could register for globally unique IP addresses. Even though the mechanisms have changed since then (CIDR and the RIRs) the basic principle still holds. There is no requirement that an organization must allow everyone to access their network in order to justify globally registered IP space. It is better for you to register the number of addresses that you actually need rather than hijack the entire 82/8 range. -- Michael Dillon #*************************************************************************** # # Dit e-mailbericht met eventuele attachments is uitsluitend bestemd voor de # geadresseerde(n) en bevat mogelijk vertrouwelijke gegevens en/of is # beschermd door intellectuele eigendomsrechten. Bent u niet de # geadresseerde, neemt u dan zo spoedig mogelijk contact op met de afzender # en verzoeken wij u het e-mailbericht en eventuele attachments van uw # computer te verwijderen. Elk gebruik van de inhoud van dit e-mailbericht # en eventuele attachments (waaronder verveelvoudiging, verspreiding of het # anderzins openbaar maken in welke vorm dan ook) door andere personen dan # de bedoelde geadresseerden is verboden. De weergegeven mening is puur # persoonlijk en hoeft niet noodzakelijk over een te komen met die van # Enertel. Enertel is niet aansprakelijk voor de inhoud van dit # e-mailbericht en eventuele attachments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carsten at ripe.net Thu Oct 10 00:44:44 2002 From: carsten at ripe.net (carsten at ripe.net) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:44:44 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform Message-ID: <3DA4B15B.FD3C6C92@ripe.net> Hans Petter, Lyman - Hans Petter Holen wrote: > --On 7. oktober 2002 15:56 -0400 Lyman Chapin wrote: > > For a public company, the shareholders (the general assembly?) can > > force or prevent bylaw changes by removing or seating individual > > directors, but they have no specific power of review. However, as > > this issue hadn't occurred to me before you raised it, I'd be > > interested to hear other viewpoints on how > > the Board's power to amend the bylaws should be specified. > > Not so in Norway: > Lov om allmennaksjeselskaper (allmennaksjeloven). > http://www.lovdata.no/all/nl-19970613-045.html > > [...] > (Desicion to change the bylaws are made by the general assembly unless > otherwise stated by law. Changes requres at least 2/3rds of the votes > from the share holder capital represented at the meeting.) > > So under Norwegian law ICANN as a public shareholder company would > have to change this. that is _exactly_ how changes to the bylaws would have to happen in Germany as well; at least for co-operatives. Regards, Carsten (speaking personally, not on behalf of the RIPE NCC) #*************************************************************************** # # Dit e-mailbericht met eventuele attachments is uitsluitend bestemd voor de # geadresseerde(n) en bevat mogelijk vertrouwelijke gegevens en/of is # beschermd door intellectuele eigendomsrechten. Bent u niet de # geadresseerde, neemt u dan zo spoedig mogelijk contact op met de afzender # en verzoeken wij u het e-mailbericht en eventuele attachments van uw # computer te verwijderen. Elk gebruik van de inhoud van dit e-mailbericht # en eventuele attachments (waaronder verveelvoudiging, verspreiding of het # anderzins openbaar maken in welke vorm dan ook) door andere personen dan # de bedoelde geadresseerden is verboden. De weergegeven mening is puur # persoonlijk en hoeft niet noodzakelijk over een te komen met die van # Enertel. Enertel is niet aansprakelijk voor de inhoud van dit # e-mailbericht en eventuele attachments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carsten at ripe.net Thu Oct 10 00:44:44 2002 From: carsten at ripe.net (carsten at ripe.net) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:44:44 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform Message-ID: <3DA4B15B.FD3C6C92@ripe.net> Hans Petter, Lyman - Hans Petter Holen wrote: > --On 7. oktober 2002 15:56 -0400 Lyman Chapin wrote: > > For a public company, the shareholders (the general assembly?) can > > force or prevent bylaw changes by removing or seating individual > > directors, but they have no specific power of review. However, as > > this issue hadn't occurred to me before you raised it, I'd be > > interested to hear other viewpoints on how > > the Board's power to amend the bylaws should be specified. > > Not so in Norway: > Lov om allmennaksjeselskaper (allmennaksjeloven). > http://www.lovdata.no/all/nl-19970613-045.html > > [...] > (Desicion to change the bylaws are made by the general assembly unless > otherwise stated by law. Changes requres at least 2/3rds of the votes > from the share holder capital represented at the meeting.) > > So under Norwegian law ICANN as a public shareholder company would > have to change this. that is _exactly_ how changes to the bylaws would have to happen in Germany as well; at least for co-operatives. Regards, Carsten (speaking personally, not on behalf of the RIPE NCC) #*************************************************************************** # # Dit e-mailbericht met eventuele attachments is uitsluitend bestemd voor de # geadresseerde(n) en bevat mogelijk vertrouwelijke gegevens en/of is # beschermd door intellectuele eigendomsrechten. Bent u niet de # geadresseerde, neemt u dan zo spoedig mogelijk contact op met de afzender # en verzoeken wij u het e-mailbericht en eventuele attachments van uw # computer te verwijderen. Elk gebruik van de inhoud van dit e-mailbericht # en eventuele attachments (waaronder verveelvoudiging, verspreiding of het # anderzins openbaar maken in welke vorm dan ook) door andere personen dan # de bedoelde geadresseerden is verboden. De weergegeven mening is puur # persoonlijk en hoeft niet noodzakelijk over een te komen met die van # Enertel. Enertel is niet aansprakelijk voor de inhoud van dit # e-mailbericht en eventuele attachments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lyman at acm.org Thu Oct 10 02:16:10 2002 From: lyman at acm.org (lyman at acm.org) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 02:16:10 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform Message-ID: >You are right, I can only appologise for not catching that. Maybe >there is just to many core values to catch my eye. ((We recently did >a management training camp in my company, and the trainer riped >appart our mission and core values statement and we rebuild from >scratch a handful of core values forming an easy to remember >acronym. with one liners to follow. While this is much more form >than content, it may be something to think trough: how to make a >T-shirt with ICANNs mission and Core values.)) Hans Petter, Yes, but who would be brave enough to wear such a T-shirt? :-) >My point excactly, and perhaps some more influence of European non >profit organisations would really be the way to look rather than US >corporate law. > >What we are building is a coop like rather than a for profit multi-national. This is a good point; one could argue that too many of ICANN's structures and processes have been developed by analogy to U.S. corporate models, and that we should look to other examples. >>In a normal corporation or organization in the U.S., changing >>the bylaws is definitely within the powers of the board. > >In the University Symphony Orcestra, Canoe Club, Folk Dance society >etc etc it would be unheard to have the board have powers like this. > >Emotionaly I would use as strong words as un-democratic and top-down >on creations like this. Maybe the right way to do this is to say that the Board has the power to change the bylaws and articles of incorporation (as a legal matter of incorporation, which is currently in California), but that such a change must be treated as a policy matter like any other, requiring review and public comment from the community. In fact, that's what we're doing with the proposed bylaw changes now - the process of public discussion and comment has been going on since last February. What the Board votes on in Shanghai will be very different, as a result of this period of public review and debate, than if the Board (or the ERC) just sat down and decided, by themselves, what the new bylaws should be. >>I realize that this is done differently in different countries. In the >>U.S., every board I have been on has included the CEO as a voting member. > >The storry I hear from my collegues who keep an eye on the US >corporate life tells me that some of the most recent "incidents" in >the US have made people think that maybe this is not such a good >idea after all. Maybe the CEO should indeed report to somebody who >can oversee and ask nasty questions from time to time. OK, that was too easy...sometimes its a real handicap to be "from the U.S." The ICANN CEO definitely reports to and is subordinate to the Board. It's not the same as complete separation, but because the CEO is a voting member of the Board *ex officio*, he or she wears two hats that are in practice distinguishable - the CEO hat, and the Board member hat. But I agree that we should consider other models for how the CEO and the Board should be related. - Lyman #*************************************************************************** # # Dit e-mailbericht met eventuele attachments is uitsluitend bestemd voor de # geadresseerde(n) en bevat mogelijk vertrouwelijke gegevens en/of is # beschermd door intellectuele eigendomsrechten. Bent u niet de # geadresseerde, neemt u dan zo spoedig mogelijk contact op met de afzender # en verzoeken wij u het e-mailbericht en eventuele attachments van uw # computer te verwijderen. Elk gebruik van de inhoud van dit e-mailbericht # en eventuele attachments (waaronder verveelvoudiging, verspreiding of het # anderzins openbaar maken in welke vorm dan ook) door andere personen dan # de bedoelde geadresseerden is verboden. De weergegeven mening is puur # persoonlijk en hoeft niet noodzakelijk over een te komen met die van # Enertel. Enertel is niet aansprakelijk voor de inhoud van dit # e-mailbericht en eventuele attachments. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Oct 10 15:31:57 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 08:31:57 -0500 Subject: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses References: <4388D217D118D31184E50008C70DEF7E03531C43@cpnexch1.cph.dk.uu.net> Message-ID: <007501c27061$6809da50$0100a8c0@repligate> Each /8 is very valuable, worth between one and two Billion U.S. dollars. It is important to have a broad base of "Trustees" that help to manage all of cyberspace. That avoids having companies with monopoly control over a space or the Registry for the space. The 11-bits of extended addressing (22 total) that can fit in the IPv4 header, allow all address spaces to be expanded. Existing "owners" do not have rights to that expanded space. Eight Trustees plus the existing owner form a 9-person "Board" to manage each space. Here is one example. 17*8=136 http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 017/8 Apple Computer Inc. Jul 92 http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 0:136 PICTURES 0:137 BBS 0:138 PLACE 0:139 KIDS 0:140 SPACE 0:141 APPRAISERS 0:142 CHANGE 0:143 CREATED ========================================== ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel N. Rasmussen" To: "'Peter B. Juul'" ; Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 10:24 AM Subject: RE: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses Hi Peter, > Could someone explain to me what the nets marked "reserved" > in for example > http://kmserv.com/testbed/ip-space.txt are expected to be > used for? Special stuff or RIR address space? Well, looking at the above link and comparing it to the most recent one (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space), I would say the latter. Eg. 068-079/8 IANA - Reserved Sep 81 now 068/8 ARIN Jun 01 069/8 ARIN Aug 02 070-079/8 IANA - Reserved Sep 81 > Peter B. Juul, > Uni?C (PBJ255-RIPE) Regards, Daniel Rasmussen dk.uunet From oppermann at tix.ch Thu Oct 10 15:41:35 2002 From: oppermann at tix.ch (Andre Oppermann) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:41:35 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses References: <4388D217D118D31184E50008C70DEF7E03531C43@cpnexch1.cph.dk.uu.net> <007501c27061$6809da50$0100a8c0@repligate> Message-ID: <3DA5838F.602F75FC@tix.ch> It would be really nice if someone at RIPE could block this guy on this list. He just annoys as much as he is off-topic with the promotion of this IPv8 stuff. -- Andre Jim Fleming wrote: > > Each /8 is very valuable, worth between one and two Billion U.S. dollars. > It is important to have a broad base of "Trustees" that help to manage all > of cyberspace. That avoids having companies with monopoly control over > a space or the Registry for the space. The 11-bits of extended addressing > (22 total) that can fit in the IPv4 header, allow all address spaces to be > expanded. Existing "owners" do not have rights to that expanded space. > Eight Trustees plus the existing owner form a 9-person "Board" to manage > each space. Here is one example. 17*8=136 > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > 017/8 Apple Computer Inc. Jul 92 > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt > 0:136 PICTURES > 0:137 BBS > 0:138 PLACE > 0:139 KIDS > 0:140 SPACE > 0:141 APPRAISERS > 0:142 CHANGE > 0:143 CREATED > ========================================== > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel N. Rasmussen" > To: "'Peter B. Juul'" ; > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 10:24 AM > Subject: RE: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses > > Hi Peter, > > > Could someone explain to me what the nets marked "reserved" > > in for example > > http://kmserv.com/testbed/ip-space.txt are expected to be > > used for? Special stuff or RIR address space? > > Well, looking at the above link and comparing it to the most recent one > (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space), I would say the > latter. > > Eg. > 068-079/8 IANA - Reserved Sep 81 > > now > 068/8 ARIN Jun 01 > 069/8 ARIN Aug 02 > 070-079/8 IANA - Reserved Sep 81 > > > Peter B. Juul, > > Uni?C (PBJ255-RIPE) > > Regards, > Daniel Rasmussen > dk.uunet From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Oct 10 16:55:09 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 09:55:09 -0500 Subject: [lir-wg] 3:184 CH (SWITZERLAND) References: <4388D217D118D31184E50008C70DEF7E03531C43@cpnexch1.cph.dk.uu.net> <007501c27061$6809da50$0100a8c0@repligate> <3DA5838F.602F75FC@tix.ch> Message-ID: <013b01c2706d$087c8680$0100a8c0@repligate> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 3:180 LIE (LIECHTENSTEIN) 3:181 FINE 3:182 TUR (TURKEY) 3:183 GEO (GEORGIA) 3:184 CH (SWITZERLAND) 3:185 AT (AUSTRIA) 3:186 INSTANCE 3:187 ROLL 3:188 RUGS ============================================= http://www.analogx.com/cgi-bin/cgidig.exe?DNS=205.214.45.10&Query=in-addr.CH&Type=255&submit=Lookup ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andre Oppermann" To: Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses > > It would be really nice if someone at RIPE could block this guy on > this list. He just annoys as much as he is off-topic with the promotion > of this IPv8 stuff. > > -- > Andre > > > Jim Fleming wrote: > > > > Each /8 is very valuable, worth between one and two Billion U.S. dollars. > > It is important to have a broad base of "Trustees" that help to manage all > > of cyberspace. That avoids having companies with monopoly control over > > a space or the Registry for the space. The 11-bits of extended addressing > > (22 total) that can fit in the IPv4 header, allow all address spaces to be > > expanded. Existing "owners" do not have rights to that expanded space. > > Eight Trustees plus the existing owner form a 9-person "Board" to manage > > each space. Here is one example. 17*8=136 > > > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > > 017/8 Apple Computer Inc. Jul 92 > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt > > 0:136 PICTURES > > 0:137 BBS > > 0:138 PLACE > > 0:139 KIDS > > 0:140 SPACE > > 0:141 APPRAISERS > > 0:142 CHANGE > > 0:143 CREATED > > ========================================== > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Daniel N. Rasmussen" > > To: "'Peter B. Juul'" ; > > Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 10:24 AM > > Subject: RE: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses > > > > Hi Peter, > > > > > Could someone explain to me what the nets marked "reserved" > > > in for example > > > http://kmserv.com/testbed/ip-space.txt are expected to be > > > used for? Special stuff or RIR address space? > > > > Well, looking at the above link and comparing it to the most recent one > > (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space), I would say the > > latter. > > > > Eg. > > 068-079/8 IANA - Reserved Sep 81 > > > > now > > 068/8 ARIN Jun 01 > > 069/8 ARIN Aug 02 > > 070-079/8 IANA - Reserved Sep 81 > > > > > Peter B. Juul, > > > Uni?C (PBJ255-RIPE) > > > > Regards, > > Daniel Rasmussen > > dk.uunet > From hpholen at tiscali.no Thu Oct 10 22:22:37 2002 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 22:22:37 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses In-Reply-To: <3DA5838F.602F75FC@tix.ch> References: <4388D217D118D31184E50008C70DEF7E03531C43@cpnexch1.cph.dk.uu.net> <007501c27061$6809da50$0100a8c0@repligate> <3DA5838F.602F75FC@tix.ch> Message-ID: <103086531.1034288557@[192.168.0.128]> Dear Andre, --On 10. oktober 2002 15:41 +0200 Andre Oppermann wrote: > It would be really nice if someone at RIPE could block this guy on > this list. He just annoys as much as he is off-topic with the promotion > of this IPv8 stuff. We have a long tradition of beeing an Open forum. Open means everybody can participate. From time to time somebody posts questions which others regards as off-topic/outisde the charter etc. The charter of the list is fairly loose so I personally find it difficult to exclude individuals from this list. My possition as chair is that this mailinglist is open for anybody to participate on. If the lir-wg feels that we should in some way limit the membership we need to establish a mempership policy. (With the consequence that we are no longer an open forum) Thus, I will not ask the RIPE NCC to block anybody from this list. Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen lir-wg chair From martinandersen at passagen.se Fri Oct 11 01:45:59 2002 From: martinandersen at passagen.se (martinandersen at passagen.se) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 01:45:59 -2200 Subject: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses In-Reply-To: <3DA5838F.602F75FC@tix.ch> Message-ID: <3DA55D430000026F@webmail-se1.sol.no1.asap-asp.net> I agree. People shouldn't be blocked if they have other views, but Flemming obviously isn't trying to contribute to any discussion. Given the nature of his messages, I would classify them as spam. They are filling up our mailboxes and are not relevant in any way to what is being discussed. - Martin >-- Ursprungligt meddelande -- >Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:41:35 +0200 >From: Andre Oppermann >To: lir-wg at ripe.net >Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses > > > >It would be really nice if someone at RIPE could block this guy on >this list. He just annoys as much as he is off-topic with the promotion >of this IPv8 stuff. > >-- >Andre > > >Jim Fleming wrote: >> >> Each /8 is very valuable, worth between one and two Billion U.S. dollars. >> It is important to have a broad base of "Trustees" that help to manage >all >> of cyberspace. That avoids having companies with monopoly control over >> a space or the Registry for the space. The 11-bits of extended addressing >> (22 total) that can fit in the IPv4 header, allow all address spaces to >be >> expanded. Existing "owners" do not have rights to that expanded space. >> Eight Trustees plus the existing owner form a 9-person "Board" to manage >> each space. Here is one example. 17*8=136 >> >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space >> 017/8 Apple Computer Inc. Jul 92 >> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt >> 0:136 PICTURES >> 0:137 BBS >> 0:138 PLACE >> 0:139 KIDS >> 0:140 SPACE >> 0:141 APPRAISERS >> 0:142 CHANGE >> 0:143 CREATED >> ========================================== >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Daniel N. Rasmussen" >> To: "'Peter B. Juul'" ; >> Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 10:24 AM >> Subject: RE: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses >> >> Hi Peter, >> >> > Could someone explain to me what the nets marked "reserved" >> > in for example >> > http://kmserv.com/testbed/ip-space.txt are expected to be >> > used for? Special stuff or RIR address space? >> >> Well, looking at the above link and comparing it to the most recent one >> (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space), I would say the >> latter. >> >> Eg. >> 068-079/8 IANA - Reserved Sep 81 >> >> now >> 068/8 ARIN Jun 01 >> 069/8 ARIN Aug 02 >> 070-079/8 IANA - Reserved Sep 81 >> >> > Peter B. Juul, >> > Uni?C (PBJ255-RIPE) >> >> Regards, >> Daniel Rasmussen >> dk.uunet > _______________________________________________________ S?k f?retag p? Gula Sidorna http://www.gulasidorna.se From pfs at cisco.com Fri Oct 11 09:47:00 2002 From: pfs at cisco.com (Philip Smith) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 17:47:00 +1000 Subject: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses In-Reply-To: <3DA5838F.602F75FC@tix.ch> References: <4388D217D118D31184E50008C70DEF7E03531C43@cpnexch1.cph.dk.uu.net> <007501c27061$6809da50$0100a8c0@repligate> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20021011174546.062f1fd8@lint.cisco.com> Mail filters are wonderful things! ;-) philip -- At 15:41 10/10/2002 +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote: >It would be really nice if someone at RIPE could block this guy on >this list. He just annoys as much as he is off-topic with the promotion >of this IPv8 stuff. > >-- >Andre From marck at rinet.ru Fri Oct 11 10:21:48 2002 From: marck at rinet.ru (Dmitry Morozovsky) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 12:21:48 +0400 (MSD) Subject: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021011174546.062f1fd8@lint.cisco.com> Message-ID: <20021011120437.W30934-100000@woozle.rinet.ru> On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Philip Smith wrote: PS> Mail filters are wonderful things! ;-) Yeah, but filtering at the source point are better than at the destioneation, you know: it helps to avoid congestion ;-) In short words: I usually do not pay too much attention to off-topics, but this exact person are mach behind the threshold. PS> >It would be really nice if someone at RIPE could block this guy on PS> >this list. He just annoys as much as he is off-topic with the promotion PS> >of this IPv8 stuff. Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, DM268-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck at rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From bortzmeyer at nic.fr Fri Oct 11 11:59:44 2002 From: bortzmeyer at nic.fr (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 11:59:44 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses In-Reply-To: <103086531.1034288557@[192.168.0.128]> References: <4388D217D118D31184E50008C70DEF7E03531C43@cpnexch1.cph.dk.uu.net> <007501c27061$6809da50$0100a8c0@repligate> <3DA5838F.602F75FC@tix.ch> <103086531.1034288557@[192.168.0.128]> Message-ID: <20021011095944.GA14468@nic.fr> On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 10:22:37PM +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote a message of 27 lines which said: > We have a long tradition of beeing an Open forum. Open means everybody can > participate. From time to time somebody posts questions which others > regards as off-topic/outisde the charter etc. Anyone can occasionally send offtopic or stupid or flame messages. Only Jim Fleming repeatedly sends messages about its dummy IPv8 to every mailing list he knows (with copies to Stuart Lynn and Vinton Cerf most of the time), whatever the original subject. If you do not want to stop him, here is the procmail rule I suggest for the members of this list: # Known troll :0 * ^From:.*Jim Fleming /dev/null From nigel at packetexchange.net Fri Oct 11 16:22:22 2002 From: nigel at packetexchange.net (Nigel Titley) Date: 11 Oct 2002 15:22:22 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Reserved addresses In-Reply-To: <20021011095944.GA14468@nic.fr> References: <4388D217D118D31184E50008C70DEF7E03531C43@cpnexch1.cph.dk.uu.net> <007501c27061$6809da50$0100a8c0@repligate> <3DA5838F.602F75FC@tix.ch> <103086531.1034288557@[192.168.0.128]> <20021011095944.GA14468@nic.fr> Message-ID: <1034346143.6418.33.camel@magrat> On Fri, 2002-10-11 at 10:59, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 10:22:37PM +0200, > Hans Petter Holen wrote > a message of 27 lines which said: > > > We have a long tradition of beeing an Open forum. Open means everybody can > > participate. From time to time somebody posts questions which others > > regards as off-topic/outisde the charter etc. > > Anyone can occasionally send offtopic or stupid or flame > messages. Only Jim Fleming repeatedly sends messages about its dummy > IPv8 to every mailing list he knows (with copies to Stuart Lynn and > Vinton Cerf most of the time), whatever the original subject. It would be a sad day when we start censoring RIPE WG lists. I find Jim's postings vaguely amusing and wouldn't want to filter him. Every community needs its eccentrics. 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 no at tjantik.dk Mon Oct 14 19:01:18 2002 From: no at tjantik.dk (pop3.tjantik.dk) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:01:18 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] assignment policy Message-ID: <027301c273a3$51746040$9600000a@hq.webpartner.dk> Hey everybody We have a customer who has build a rather large ethernet MAN network in there local area (potentialy 50.000 privat customers), they have chosen us to provide the internet capacity for there solution. Now the issue of Fixed IP addresses comes up. The solution they have designed for there network, requires a /30 for each customes that requests a fixed IP address. Is this "allowed" in current RIPE policies ? Nicolaj Ottsen From pim at bit.nl Mon Oct 14 19:38:01 2002 From: pim at bit.nl (Pim van Pelt) Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 19:38:01 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] assignment policy In-Reply-To: <027301c273a3$51746040$9600000a@hq.webpartner.dk> References: <027301c273a3$51746040$9600000a@hq.webpartner.dk> Message-ID: <20021014173801.GA76549@hog.ipng.nl> Hoi Nicolaj, Assuming half of your customers need a /32, you will have to create 25000 interfaces on your router(s) and need a /15 to accomodate this. I'm quite sure you cannot justify this, but that is my personal opinion. If it is allowed or not, building these types of networks should not be encourraged. Either switch to PPPoE (which gives out /32 IP addresses to endusers) or use bridged ethernet and shared media (/24s with DHCP) where possible. groet, Pim On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 07:01:18PM +0200, pop3.tjantik.dk wrote: | Hey everybody | | We have a customer who has build a rather large ethernet MAN network in | there local area (potentialy 50.000 privat customers), they have chosen us | to provide the internet capacity for there solution. | | Now the issue of Fixed IP addresses comes up. The solution they have | designed for there network, requires a /30 for each customes that requests a | fixed IP address. | | Is this "allowed" in current RIPE policies ? | | Nicolaj Ottsen | | | | -- __________________ Met vriendelijke groet, /\ ___/ Pim van Pelt /- \ _/ Business Internet Trends BV PBVP1-RIPE /--- \/ __________________ From peter.galbavy at knowtion.net Tue Oct 15 09:55:12 2002 From: peter.galbavy at knowtion.net (Peter Galbavy) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:55:12 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] assignment policy References: <027301c273a3$51746040$9600000a@hq.webpartner.dk> <20021014173801.GA76549@hog.ipng.nl> Message-ID: <004b01c27420$30f9adc0$4528a8c0@cblan.mblox.com> > Assuming half of your customers need a /32, you will have to create > 25000 interfaces on your router(s) and need a /15 to accomodate this. > I'm quite sure you cannot justify this, but that is my personal opinion. While at Demon, we worked very hard to ensure that the assignment policies at RIPE did not enforce business decisions on companies - that is the job of the marketplace in a 'capitalist' world. It is not a case of justifying the >purpose< of the assignment, all you have to do is justify the quantities of address space you require, and show that you have explored alternatives but that your business model requires a particular usage. Peter From stephen.burley at manufree.net Tue Oct 15 18:31:05 2002 From: stephen.burley at manufree.net (Stephen Burley) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 17:31:05 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Goodbye All Message-ID: <00cf01c27468$42e1f2c0$0a14fea9@merlin> Hi Just a quick note to say thankyou and bye. My job at the struggling telecoms giant Worldcom has come to an end, what they will do not i do not know but then thats Worldcoms approach to everything i suppose. Anyway thankyou for the enjoyable times i have spent talking to you all and for enriching my life. I have had a great time being part of this ever changing community and i wish you all the best for the future. I do not know where i go from here but then maybe its time to change my path in life, recently i have found my self unable to keep abreast of most of the issues so my lack of mails will probably not be missed. I will miss all of you who knew me and no doubt some of you will breath a sigh of relief. Anyway i wish the community all the success in the world and please do not loose sight of the RIPE ideals that this community was built on. Hope our paths cross again some day. Regards, Stephen Burley Former UUNET EMEA Hostmaster. From pieterjan at itn.skynet.be Fri Oct 18 15:07:39 2002 From: pieterjan at itn.skynet.be (D'HERTOG Pieterjan) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:07:39 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg]Ripe ftp server ? Message-ID: Is there a problem with the ftp server of ripe ? I get a connection refused... Pieterjan --- Pieterjan d'Hertog, Senior Network Engineer Belgacom Skynet NV/SA, 2 Rue Carli, B-1140 Brussels Phone +3227061311 Fax +3227061150 http://www.skynet.be PGP fingerprint: D9AB CD6A 2A78 73CC 68BF 0AFA 8FB3 5821 E4BB 9D2E From mally at ripe.net Fri Oct 18 15:18:40 2002 From: mally at ripe.net (Mally Mclane) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:18:40 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg]Ripe ftp server ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Peterjan, > Is there a problem with the ftp server of ripe ? > > I get a connection refused... We are currently in the middle of some emergency maintenance on the main ftp server. For the moment, please try 'ftp2.ripe.net'. The problems with ftp.ripe.net will be fixed asap. If you have any further questions, please email ops at ripe.net. Regards, Mally Mclane RIPE NCC - Operations From hpholen at tiscali.no Sat Oct 19 11:36:12 2002 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:36:12 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg]Draft Minutes from LIR WG at RIPE 43 Message-ID: <00b401c27752$f6810770$7900a8c0@no.tiscali.com> Dear WG, The Draft Minutes from LIR WG at RIPE 43 are now available on http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/r43-minutes.html Please read trough and submit comments to the list or to me before November 19th. Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen LIR-Wg Chair From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Wed Oct 23 09:04:00 2002 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:04:00 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <9601906.1034113531@[192.168.0.128]> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101423.0288b968@localhost.ripe.net> <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> <000401c26e72$8f36de20$79112344@laptoy> <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101423.0288b968@localhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021023084327.0260be70@localhost.ripe.net> At 09:45 PM 10/8/2002, Hans Petter Holen wrote: >My diagnosis is that there is to little participation from the community. > >This is not only the RIPE NCCs fault. >This could be a community failiure, process failiure, or even failiure of the chair of this wg or something else. Hans Petter, this diagnosis is a difficult one. I have been worrying about this 'problem' ever since RIPE meetings have grown beyond 50 attenders. And I have been very concerned, to the point of being distressed, about the lack of a vivid discussion many times. Rob is my witness. After a while he developed quite some routine to calm me down on these occasions. ;-) I am now convinced that one cannot do more than provide an open forum and bring the important issues to the table together with proposals how to deal wit them. If there is no big discussion, implement things as proposed and do not waste too much energy worrying whether there was enough discussion. Take the lack of discussion as a vote of confidence. I understand that anyone who is committed to open discussion, such as yourself, will sometimes have the feeling that there is too much confidence expressed by lack of discussion. That is true. But one cannot do more than provide the forum and offer every opportunity for discussion. If the community has too much confidence there is little one can do about it. Either it is justified or it is not, but worrying about it is wasting energy. Daniel From svl at nrw.net Wed Oct 23 10:29:29 2002 From: svl at nrw.net (Siegfried Langenbach) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:29:29 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021023084327.0260be70@localhost.ripe.net> References: <9601906.1034113531@[192.168.0.128]> Message-ID: <3DB67A09.11622.55D8E3A@localhost> agreed siegfried On 23 Oct 2002 at 9:04, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > At 09:45 PM 10/8/2002, Hans Petter Holen wrote: > >My diagnosis is that there is to little participation from the community. > > > >This is not only the RIPE NCCs fault. > >This could be a community failiure, process failiure, or even failiure of the chair of this wg or something else. > > Hans Petter, > > this diagnosis is a difficult one. > > I have been worrying about this 'problem' ever since RIPE meetings > have grown beyond 50 attenders. And I have been very concerned, to > the point of being distressed, about the lack of a vivid discussion > many times. Rob is my witness. After a while he developed quite some > routine to calm me down on these occasions. ;-) > > I am now convinced that one cannot do more than provide an open forum > and bring the important issues to the table together with proposals > how to deal wit them. If there is no big discussion, implement things > as proposed and do not waste too much energy worrying whether > there was enough discussion. Take the lack of discussion as > a vote of confidence. > > I understand that anyone who is committed to open discussion, such > as yourself, will sometimes have the feeling that there is too > much confidence expressed by lack of discussion. That is true. > But one cannot do more than provide the forum and offer every > opportunity for discussion. If the community has too much confidence > there is little one can do about it. Either it is justified or it is > not, but worrying about it is wasting energy. > > Daniel > > From gert at space.net Wed Oct 23 11:04:32 2002 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:04:32 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021023084327.0260be70@localhost.ripe.net>; from Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net on Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 09:04:00AM +0200 References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101423.0288b968@localhost.ripe.net> <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> <000401c26e72$8f36de20$79112344@laptoy> <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101423.0288b968@localhost.ripe.net> <9601906.1034113531@[192.168.0.128]> <4.3.2.7.2.20021023084327.0260be70@localhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <20021023110432.B94537@Space.Net> Hi, On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 09:04:00AM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > I am now convinced that one cannot do more than provide an open forum > and bring the important issues to the table together with proposals > how to deal wit them. If there is no big discussion, implement things > as proposed and do not waste too much energy worrying whether > there was enough discussion. Take the lack of discussion as > a vote of confidence. I just want to state publically that I trust Daniel, Hans-Petter, and the other RIPE people involved in this matter to do the right thing. Not being a legal expert, and not being a native english speaker either, it's very hard for me to directly comment on the ICANN proposals. On the other hand, I have come to trust you guys over the last years, and see no reason to distrust you now. Of course, if you change the existing open processes into a "the RIPE NCC rules the world!" dictatorship, we'll come and get you... Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 48282 (47686) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 From randy at psg.com Wed Oct 23 14:51:29 2002 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 05:51:29 -0700 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101423.0288b968@localhost.ripe.net> <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> <000401c26e72$8f36de20$79112344@laptoy> <4.3.2.7.2.20021023084327.0260be70@localhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: > I am now convinced that one cannot do more than provide an open forum > and bring the important issues to the table together with proposals > how to deal wit them. If there is no big discussion, implement things > as proposed and do not waste too much energy worrying whether > there was enough discussion. and when there are six proposals, often with overlap, all are then accepted. i have seen this. a wonderfully degenerate form of design by committee. not very good engineering. randy From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Wed Oct 23 09:04:00 2002 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:04:00 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: <9601906.1034113531@[192.168.0.128]> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101423.0288b968@localhost.ripe.net> <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> <000401c26e72$8f36de20$79112344@laptoy> <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101423.0288b968@localhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021023084327.0260be70@localhost.ripe.net> At 09:45 PM 10/8/2002, Hans Petter Holen wrote: >My diagnosis is that there is to little participation from the community. > >This is not only the RIPE NCCs fault. >This could be a community failiure, process failiure, or even failiure of the chair of this wg or something else. Hans Petter, this diagnosis is a difficult one. I have been worrying about this 'problem' ever since RIPE meetings have grown beyond 50 attenders. And I have been very concerned, to the point of being distressed, about the lack of a vivid discussion many times. Rob is my witness. After a while he developed quite some routine to calm me down on these occasions. ;-) I am now convinced that one cannot do more than provide an open forum and bring the important issues to the table together with proposals how to deal wit them. If there is no big discussion, implement things as proposed and do not waste too much energy worrying whether there was enough discussion. Take the lack of discussion as a vote of confidence. I understand that anyone who is committed to open discussion, such as yourself, will sometimes have the feeling that there is too much confidence expressed by lack of discussion. That is true. But one cannot do more than provide the forum and offer every opportunity for discussion. If the community has too much confidence there is little one can do about it. Either it is justified or it is not, but worrying about it is wasting energy. Daniel From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Wed Oct 23 15:01:10 2002 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 15:01:10 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101423.0288b968@localhost.ripe.net> <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> <000401c26e72$8f36de20$79112344@laptoy> <4.3.2.7.2.20021023084327.0260be70@localhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021023145746.025000e0@localhost.ripe.net> At 02:51 PM 10/23/2002, Randy Bush wrote: >and when there are six proposals, often with overlap, all are then >accepted. i have seen this. a wonderfully degenerate form of >design by committee. not very good engineering. Bad things can always happen. I do not know what you are referring to, but has that been fixed since then. Otherwise I will be happy to try starting a lively discussion once more ;-). Daniel From hpholen at tiscali.no Wed Oct 23 17:04:28 2002 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 17:04:28 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg] ICANN Reform References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101423.0288b968@localhost.ripe.net> <20021007185011.J31568@iprg.nokia.com> <000401c26e72$8f36de20$79112344@laptoy> <4.3.2.7.2.20021008101423.0288b968@localhost.ripe.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20021023084327.0260be70@localhost.ripe.net> Message-ID: <001201c27aa5$7c86b270$0f0b2f0a@no.tiscali.com> Daniel, Thanks for you comments, | I am now convinced that one cannot do more than provide an open forum | and bring the important issues to the table together with proposals | how to deal wit them. If there is no big discussion, implement things | as proposed and do not waste too much energy worrying whether | there was enough discussion. Take the lack of discussion as | a vote of confidence. To a certain extent I agree, but to act responsibly I have to ask myself constantly wether I am doing the ringth things or whether wthings could have been done differently to archive a better result. I think of this as a constant process of improvement. | I understand that anyone who is committed to open discussion, such | as yourself, will sometimes have the feeling that there is too | much confidence expressed by lack of discussion. That is true. | But one cannot do more than provide the forum and offer every | opportunity for discussion. If the community has too much confidence | there is little one can do about it. Either it is justified or it is | not, but worrying about it is wasting energy. Maybe you are right, but maybe there are things I could do to facilitate better discussions. Maybe the procedure on http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/howto_develop.html should be reviewed to see if we can increase the likelyhood of qualitative discussions. -hph From hpholen at tiscali.no Wed Oct 23 21:42:41 2002 From: hpholen at tiscali.no (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 21:42:41 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg]Election of chairs to the lir-wg - call for nominations Message-ID: <2453109.1035409361@[192.168.0.128]> 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 theimes at de.cw.net Fri Oct 25 10:38:55 2002 From: theimes at de.cw.net (Tanja Heimes) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:38:55 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg]Hostmaster Robot Message-ID: <3DB9031F.DB6F875F@de.cw.net> Hello, when sending mails and IP requests to hostmaster at ripe.net I am receiving either strange responses from the robot - for instance that totals are missing (but they are not missing), or that the format is not correct. Additionally I am getting a second response that the IP request has not been recognized as an IP request - but it is. When correcting something in the request and resending the mail with the NCC# in the subject I am not receiving a response anymore from the Robot. When checking in the Web for the TT status there is stated that RIPE expects a reply. But RIPE got a reply. And in other cases I even do not get a NCC# Nr. at all. Does somebody have made similar experiences the last two days? Regards, Tanja -- Tanja Heimes E-Mail Tanja.Heimes at de.cw.com IP Engineer Comnet: 749 9374 Cable & Wireless Deutschland GmbH TEL. + 49 89 92699-0 Landsberger Strasse 155 Fax. + 49 89 92699-810 D-80687 Munich, Germany web: http://www.cw.com/de From andrei at ripe.net Fri Oct 25 11:54:05 2002 From: andrei at ripe.net (Andrei Robachevsky) Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 11:54:05 +0200 Subject: [lir-wg]Hostmaster Robot References: <3DB9031F.DB6F875F@de.cw.net> Message-ID: <3DB914BD.2060606@ripe.net> Dear Tanja, Colleagues, Tanja Heimes wrote: > Hello, > > when sending mails and IP requests to hostmaster at ripe.net I am receiving > either strange responses from the robot - for instance that totals are > missing (but they are not missing), or that the format is not correct. > Additionally I am getting a second response that the IP request has not > been recognized as an IP request - but it is. > When correcting something in the request and resending the mail with the > NCC# in the subject I am not receiving a response anymore from the > Robot. When checking in the Web for the TT status there is stated that > RIPE expects a reply. But RIPE got a reply. > > And in other cases I even do not get a NCC# Nr. at all. > The hostmaster robot had problems interacting with the backend database since last night. Now the problem is solved. All requests that came since that time were saved and will be reprocessed. So no need to send them again. In case you experience further problems please contact us. I apologise for the inconvenience that the problems have caused to you. > Does somebody have made similar experiences the last two days? > > Regards, > > Tanja > > Regards, Andrei Robachevsky Interim CTO RIPE NCC From JimFleming at ameritech.net Sat Oct 26 16:00:24 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 09:00:24 -0500 Subject: [lir-wg]China Distracted With IPv6...While Others Lease IPv4 Address Space References: <3DB9031F.DB6F875F@de.cw.net> Message-ID: <098201c27cf8$08834730$0100a8c0@repligate> China Distracted With IPv6...While Others Lease IPv4 Address Space http://www.icann.org/shanghai/ipv6-topic.htm http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt From JimFleming at ameritech.net Sun Oct 27 15:18:34 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 08:18:34 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg]Is there really a shortage of 32-bit Address Space ? Message-ID: <005e01c27dc3$bc108850$0100a8c0@repligate> Is there really a shortage of 32-bit Address Space ? NOTE the changes... http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Jim Fleming 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... http://ipv8.dyndns.tv http://ipv8.dyns.cx http://ipv8.no-ip.com http://ipv8.no-ip.biz http://ipv8.no-ip.info http://ipv8.myip.us http://ipv8.dyn.ee http://ipv8.community.net.au From JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Oct 28 15:09:00 2002 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 08:09:00 -0600 Subject: [lir-wg]Fw: http://www.icann.org/amsterdam/ Message-ID: <02a301c27e8b$9092f820$0100a8c0@repligate> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Fleming" To: ; ; ; "Barbara Simons" ; "Milton Mueller" Cc: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; "Elisabeth Porteneuve" ; ; ; "@quasar Internet Solutions, Inc." ; "Bruce Young" ; ; ; "Joanna Lane" ; "Joe Baptista" ; "Joop Teernstra" ; "Judith Oppenheimer" ; ; ; ; "Richard Henderson" ; "Richard J. Sexton" Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 8:04 AM Subject: http://www.icann.org/amsterdam/ > http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/2002-October/003004.html > J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin jefsey at club-internet.fr > "The same as Shanghai Beijing oriented, I read Amsterdam as the nearest > place from Brussels ICANN could chose to try a last attempt to enroll > Europe, trying to use the still different internal European attitudes, > knowing that within a few months the European position will be quite > united." > ===== > > http://www.icann.org/amsterdam/ > At $168,000,000 per year per /8, I would think that ICANN would want > to visit their customers on a regular basis, and even have an office there. > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > INTERNET PROTOCOL V4 ADDRESS SPACE > (last updated 2002-10-25) > 062/8 Apr 97 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > 080/8 Apr 01 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > 081/8 Apr 01 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > 193/8 May 93 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > 194/8 May 93 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > 195/8 May 93 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > 212/8 Oct 97 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > 213/8 Mar 99 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > 217/8 Jun 00 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) > ===================================== > > http://www.ripe.net > http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/location.html > Office Location: > RIPE NCC > Singel 258 > 1016 AB Amsterdam > The Netherlands > ============================================= > > How much does SITA pay ICANN each year for this /8 ? > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > 057/8 May 95 SITA > ==== > > > Jim Fleming > 128-bit DNS is closer than you think... > http://ipv8.dyndns.tv > http://ipv8.dyns.cx > http://ipv8.no-ip.com > http://ipv8.no-ip.biz > http://ipv8.no-ip.info > http://ipv8.myip.us > http://ipv8.dyn.ee > http://ipv8.community.net.au > > From leo at ripe.net Tue Oct 29 23:58:25 2002 From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 23:58:25 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Summary of ERX-TF discussion Message-ID: <20021029225825.GA7334@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, As promised, here is a summary of the short discussion had on the mailing list over the last few weeks. There have been about 15 messages in total. On 10 October we published the RIPE NCC's proposed ERX process for IPv4 to the Task Force. There were two technical queries: a request for confirmation that all contacts in both databases be e-mailed. Also, there was a request for confirmation on how reverse delegations would be handled. Substantive issues included a question on how early registrations would be handled from a policy point of view. The RIPE NCC confirmed that in the past, the majority of registrants have agreed to meet the current policy requirements for registration. However, we also noted that previous registrations have tended to be done for organisations who place a value on registration data. It was argued that the policy issues were less important than the accuracy of the registration data transferred/updated. No other issues on the transfer process were raised. It appears that the Task Force is happy with the proposed transfer process. As such, we would like to publish the proposed process in the next few days. Regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services From ncc at ripe.net Thu Oct 31 15:29:11 2002 From: ncc at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:29:11 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] New Document available: RIPE-261 Message-ID: <200210311429.g9VETBnZ030930@birch.ripe.net> [Apologies for duplicate mails] New RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A new document is available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-261 Title: IPv6 Address Space Management Author: Paul Wilson, Raymond Plzak, Axel Pawlik Date: 31 October 2002 Format: PS=27246 TXT=13567 Obsoletes: Obsoleted by: Updates: Updated by: Short content description ------------------------- The "IPv6 Address Space Management" document provides the management process for IPv6 global unicast address space whereby address allocations are made from a single global pool according to a "sparse allocation" algorithm. This allocation process will maximise aggregation of address space, ensuring that most ISPs retain a single prefix as they grow, and avoiding the address space fragmentation which results from the current IPv4 allocation technique. This document also describes the registration process and the administration of the IP6.ARPA domain. Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- You can access the RIPE documents in HTML format via our website. "IPv6 Address Space Management" is available at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ipv6-sparse.html The RIPE document store is also available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-261.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-261.txt plain text version From leo at ripe.net Thu Oct 31 18:57:05 2002 From: leo at ripe.net (leo vegoda) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 18:57:05 +0100 Subject: [lir-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg@ripe.net] IPv6 TLAs for mobile operators In-Reply-To: <595362761E89B640A907F5112F8B89B8836E83@sxmbx03.corproot.net> References: <595362761E89B640A907F5112F8B89B8836E83@sxmbx03.corproot.net> Message-ID: <20021031175705.GA17968@ripe.net> [Note: cc'd as this relates to policy] Andreas, On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 06:31:06PM +0100, Andreas.Schmid1 at swisscom.com wrote: Re: RE: [ipv6-wg at ripe.net] IPv6 TLAs for mobile operators [...] > RFC3314 says on page 14: > "Because multiple IPv6 hosts may attach through a 3GPP handset, the IPv6 > WG recommends that one or more /64 prefixes should be assigned to each > primary PDP context." > > But I really don't want to concentrate on that discussion. I want to > know if RIPE NCC accepts IPv6 TLA requests from mobile operators only > having GPRS/UMTS/WLAN customers - and therefore not providing > connectivity to organisations with a /48. > -> if anybody can clarify this, I would be very happy! The RIPE NCC implements the RIPE community's policy as described in the IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy. The policy was agreed at the RIPE 42 meeting in May. An LIR submitting a request for an initial IPv6 allocation will need to meet all four requirements specified in the policy. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services