RIPE 64 - RIPE NCC Services Working Group
Scribe: Laura Cobley
WG co-Chairs: Bijal Sanghani, Kurtis Lindqvist
Wednesday, 14 April, 16:00-17:30
A: Administrative Matters (5 min)
Kurtis Lindqvist (Netnod) opened the meeting and ran through the administrative items. The minutes of the last meeting were formally approved.
B: RIPE NCC Update (10 min)
- Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC
The presentation is available at: https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/160-Pawlik_RIPENCC_Services.pdf
Filiz Yilmaz (ICANN) confirmed that as there had been no comments made on the global policy regarding recovered IPv4 address space, the process would be moving on.
C: Member Services Developments (15 min)
- Andrew de la Haye, RIPE NCC
The presentation is available at: https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/129-RIPE_64_-_Member_Services_update_final.pdf
There were no questions.
D: Services for Legacy Resource Holders (15 min)
- Niall O’Reilly
The presentation is available at: https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/118-Services-for-Legacy-current.pdf
Shane Kerr (ISC) asked why the discussion was not being held in the Address Policy Working Group (APWG). Niall explained that the community is looking for clarity on the services offered to legacy resource holders by the RIPE NCC and Gert Doering (APWG co-Chair) confirmed that there is no address policy involved as the resources were not obtained through the RIPE NCC. Niall also welcomed any legacy holders to contact him in order to join the mailing list.
Piotr Strzyzewski (Silesian University of Technology, Computer Centre) supported the inclusion of all stakeholders and stated that he believed the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) are contractually obliged by IANA to hold accurate data.
Wilfried Woeber (Vienna University) pointed out that this requirement applies to the domain name business and not to the RIRs and that the working group should be careful to focus on what the RIPE community wants.
Sandra Brown (IPv4 Market Group) asked for a confirmation of which policies legacy holders would be held to and asked whether these policies could be listed. Niall explained that the idea is that legacy holders would be subject to all policies and Kurtis added that the address space would no longer be considered as legacy. Sandra raised concerns that future transfers or sales of Internet resources could be problematic as a result of this. Kurtis explained that there would be no difference between these and other resource holders and so the normal transfer policies would apply.
Nigel Titley (RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman) asked for the impact of the proposal to be shared as early as possible to allow the board to consider it when looking at the Charging Scheme Task Force report in June. Wilfried noted that the news seemed to have come out of the blue and suggested that this could have been done earlier. He also supported the argument that having received the resources when the process was different should not be a reason for being exempt from the current system by making an analogy between legacy holders and drivers in Belgium who had no license and who were obliged to obtain one. He reiterated that any changes should be well-communicated. Kurtis then asked the working group whether they supported Niall to author the policy proposal and to bring it to this working group for discussion. There was agreement within the room.
E: IPv4 Final Distribution Process (15 min)
- Andrea Cima, RIPE NCC
The presentation is available at: https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/168-NCC-Services-final.pdf
There were no questions.
F: Cross-border Law Enforcement (15 min)
- Jochem de Ruig, RIPE NCC
Ruediger Volk (Deutsche Telekom) said he believed that the networks that were connected might have benefited from knowing what was going on in addition to the RIPE NCC members that were involved.
G: The Future of the TTM and DNSMON Services (10 min)
Daniel Karrenberg, RIPE NCC
The presentation is available at: https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/163-20120418-ncc-services-dfk.pdf
Brian Nisbet (HEAnet) expressed his surprise about the apparent suddenness of the decision and added that he would have appreciated more notice about the actions ahead of the notification of closure. Daniel accepted this and stated that the RIPE NCC would stop the process if there are any concerns about it.
Nina Bargisen (TDC) raised her concerns that new tools are being developed which are useful for the small members who have small amounts of address space and not so much for the members that hold the larger proportion of the address space. Daniel answered that the RIPE NCC is looking in to this and is also planning to make raw data available so that people can write their own tools.