From sander at steffann.nl Mon Oct 2 18:08:32 2023 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 18:08:32 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Are anonymised assignment objects valid? In-Reply-To: References: <3a34fcfa-89eb-5008-fe5b-adff38ca03c3@ripe.net> <3789901f-13c2-4432-a990-260c754d3ba6@apex.dp.ua> <8ed395a5710513f8a135eb04bfea38e25118acc6.camel@fud.no> <20e0e06594a555f3780f262e0f29ed38cad32eac.camel@fud.no> <195a063ef4b9582c7558370755a82b0740f255bd.camel@fud.no> Message-ID: Hi, > I think I mostly agree with Nick here and I feel like Tore is a bit > dismissive of the concerns raised by denis. > > I don't really feel that strongly about this policy proposal in itself > but I do now see that it is a significantly larger change than Tore > suggests that it is. > I wouldn't be surprised if more people who have said "+1" to this > proposal did so without realizing that it's not such a minor change. +1 to that! Guilty person right here :) > As such, I really think that there needs to be more discussion about > this in the context of changing a meaningful part of the policy. I totally agree. This is a change that we have to take consciously, not as a side-effect of a different idea. I personally have no problem with this change. I recognise the importance of documenting every end-user?s contact details, as end-users were often actively involved in running their network. But in this day and age of outsourcing, the value of the information is much lower than it used to be. I?m not saying that there is no value anymore! There are many cases where resource holders are actually network operators with relevant information in the DB, but I don?t think that changing the policy will cause them to suddenly stop creating DB objects. And for those who don?t *want* to document things, they have already found ways around that in the current implementation of the policy. I think the best way forward would be: - encourage operators to document *useful* contact info (a SHOULD) - don?t require what we don?t/won?t/can?t enforce (no MUST) - realise that the current internet is not the internet that this DB was designed for - align IPv4 and IPv6 requirements/standards where possible So: - the ALLOCATION objects will always have validated information enforced by the RIPE NCC - objects below that are for delegating responsibility and contact points - if an LIR wants to keep/assume responsibility, very few additional DB objects are needed I realise there are quite a few potentially controversial statements here, please use this as a thought provoking discussion point ;) Cheers! Sander From frettled at gmail.com Tue Oct 3 15:49:29 2023 From: frettled at gmail.com (Jan Ingvoldstad) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2023 15:49:29 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Are anonymised assignment objects valid? In-Reply-To: References: <3a34fcfa-89eb-5008-fe5b-adff38ca03c3@ripe.net> <3789901f-13c2-4432-a990-260c754d3ba6@apex.dp.ua> <8ed395a5710513f8a135eb04bfea38e25118acc6.camel@fud.no> <20e0e06594a555f3780f262e0f29ed38cad32eac.camel@fud.no> <195a063ef4b9582c7558370755a82b0740f255bd.camel@fud.no> Message-ID: Hi, and sorry for not engaging in this discussion at an earlier point in time. On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 6:09?PM Sander Steffann wrote: > > I personally have no problem with this change. I recognise the importance > of documenting every end-user?s contact details, as end-users were often > actively involved in running their network. But in this day and age of > outsourcing, the value of the information is much lower than it used to be. > > I?m not saying that there is no value anymore! There are many cases where > resource holders are actually network operators with relevant information > in the DB, but I don?t think that changing the policy will cause them to > suddenly stop creating DB objects. And for those who don?t *want* to > document things, they have already found ways around that in the current > implementation of the policy. > I sort of agree with the reasoning, however: sloppy contact details have real world consequences. They result in blocklisting of entire IP ranges, for email, or even for other kinds of network traffic, because the contacts listed are "dummy" contacts. Denis is, although wordy and repetitive, pretty much dead on with the reasoning. However, I do not think it is necessary to require person names or other direct PII. Roles and role addresses could be encouraged. In some parts of the Internet, there are regulatory requirements that abuse departments answer and deal with complaints in a timely manner. These time limits are fairly short. Just because e.g. Google and Microsoft laugh in the face of such requirements and provide dysfunctional contact points, does not make it okay, nor an obvious matter of policy change to remove the requirement. > > I think the best way forward would be: > - encourage operators to document *useful* contact info (a SHOULD) > - don?t require what we don?t/won?t/can?t enforce (no MUST) > I disagree, the MUST should be there. > - realise that the current internet is not the internet that this DB was > designed for > Might as well stop issuing policy at all, then. > - align IPv4 and IPv6 requirements/standards where possible > I see no reason why policyregarding contact details should differ between IP versions. -- Cheers, Jan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sander at steffann.nl Tue Oct 3 17:00:53 2023 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2023 17:00:53 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Are anonymised assignment objects valid? In-Reply-To: References: <3a34fcfa-89eb-5008-fe5b-adff38ca03c3@ripe.net> <3789901f-13c2-4432-a990-260c754d3ba6@apex.dp.ua> <8ed395a5710513f8a135eb04bfea38e25118acc6.camel@fud.no> <20e0e06594a555f3780f262e0f29ed38cad32eac.camel@fud.no> <195a063ef4b9582c7558370755a82b0740f255bd.camel@fud.no> Message-ID: > - realise that the current internet is not the internet that this DB was designed for > > Might as well stop issuing policy at all, then. The thought did cross my mind ;) Cheers! Sander From ripedenis at gmail.com Tue Oct 3 18:05:14 2023 From: ripedenis at gmail.com (denis walker) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2023 18:05:14 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Are anonymised assignment objects valid? In-Reply-To: References: <3a34fcfa-89eb-5008-fe5b-adff38ca03c3@ripe.net> <3789901f-13c2-4432-a990-260c754d3ba6@apex.dp.ua> <8ed395a5710513f8a135eb04bfea38e25118acc6.camel@fud.no> <20e0e06594a555f3780f262e0f29ed38cad32eac.camel@fud.no> <195a063ef4b9582c7558370755a82b0740f255bd.camel@fud.no> Message-ID: On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 at 17:00, Sander Steffann wrote: > > > - realise that the current internet is not the internet that this DB was designed for > > > > Might as well stop issuing policy at all, then. > > The thought did cross my mind ;) or redesign the DB to fit the internet we have today!!! An option that still, nobody will even discuss. How much more proof do we need that this 25 year old design needs attention? (Well you could read Ed's latest impact analysis on a small DB feature change to assignments.) cheers denis co-chair DB-WG > > Cheers! > Sander > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/ From ripedenis at gmail.com Thu Oct 5 17:42:46 2023 From: ripedenis at gmail.com (denis walker) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2023 17:42:46 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Who do I speak for? In-Reply-To: References: <3a34fcfa-89eb-5008-fe5b-adff38ca03c3@ripe.net> <3789901f-13c2-4432-a990-260c754d3ba6@apex.dp.ua> <8ed395a5710513f8a135eb04bfea38e25118acc6.camel@fud.no> <20e0e06594a555f3780f262e0f29ed38cad32eac.camel@fud.no> <195a063ef4b9582c7558370755a82b0740f255bd.camel@fud.no> Message-ID: Colleagues A question has been put to me privately asking if I am speaking for the DB-WG because I sign my mails as 'co-chair DB-WG'. Now asking a question like this to an analyst means you are going to get a detailed answer. Everything about RIPE (not RIPE NCC) is underpinned by the RIPE community. This is a very loosely defined community. It is basically anyone in the world who has an opinion on how the Internet is operated and administered in the RIPE region. It is not tied to any specific group of people and I don't think it carries any legal weight, even on any consensual decisions it makes. I'm not sure if the relationship between RIPE and the RIPE NCC is even written into the RIPE NCC's corporate documents requiring the RIPE NCC to take instructions from a RIPE community consensus, or just from its own membership and/or executive board. So the whole concept of the RIPE community and everything it does is voluntary and pretty much undefined. So what is a Working Group vs a RIPE Working Group? A WG can be established to be a specific, defined set of people, assigned a specific task to investigate or work on. Such a WG can have an opinion, viewpoint or a conclusive result. The chairs of such a WG can express opinions, views or conclusions for or on behalf of the WG. Similar to what we call a Task Force. A RIPE WG is basically a public mailing list that anyone in the world can read and follow, but only a random subset of the community subscribers to the list will comment on for any specific issue. The WG, or mailing list, can't have a view or opinion. Only the community members subscribed to the list, who choose to comment, have views and opinions, which may be personal or corporate. So a co-chair cannot speak 'for' a WG. At best they can express a summary of the views held by the community members who choose to comment on any specific issue. Another difference is that a RIPE WG, unlike a TF, is not limited to one issue. It can have any number of diverse issues under discussion at any moment. The only consideration is that each issue vaguely fits the title of the WG. Following a discussion the chairs can determine if there is a consensus from the views expressed by those transient, community members who commented. The chairs and anyone else can then refer to that consensus. But this is a consensus of the views of the community members, not of the WG. The WG itself, being so loosely defined, cannot have a view. Even though it says in ripe-692 RIPE Working Group Chair Job Description and Procedures, "When participating in RIPE discussions, WG Chairs and co-chairs should endeavour to make it clear whether they speak on behalf of themselves, the organisations they work for, or the WG for which they are co-chair." I think this is a generalised condition. With the structure of RIPE WGs there is no meaning to speaking 'for' a WG. A RIPE WG is just a collection of views expressed by individual, transient RIPE community members which may or may not reach a consensus. Incidentally I don't recall ever seeing a WG chair state that a view is that of their business. I would be surprised if no chair has ever expressed a view that is in the best interests of their business. Rather than this constant dance with changing hats, I think it would make more sense to assume any comment or view expressed by anyone, including a co-chair, is a personal view unless they explicitly say it is the view of their business or a collective or consensual view from a WG. The web page https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg sums it up quite well, "The responsibility of the chairs is to moderate discussions and declare whether consensus is reached on a policy proposal...Most of the working group?s activity is done via the mailing list" As there has been no policy proposal or NWI on the DB-WG mailing list on these issues there is no consensus and therefore nothing I could refer to in a way of speaking 'for' the DB-WG. Even on this page https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/wg-chairs it says, "The chairs are responsible for moderating discussions on the mailing lists, chairing Working Group sessions and for declaring whether consensus is reached on a policy proposal." There is no concept of speaking 'for' the WG mentioned. Of course I could start a parallel discussion on the DB-WG mailing list about the content of the RIPE Database and it's future. But the small subset of the RIPE community who comment on the DB-WG mailing list is pretty much the same as the small subset of the RIPE community who comment on the AP-WG mailing list. It is extremely hard to get many people to comment on any discussion on any mailing list these days. To ask the same people to express the same views in two different places would be an impossible task. As the two mailing lists do have such an overlap of contributors I see this discussion as a RIPE Database discussion as much as an address policy discussion, even though it is on the AP-WG list. It is generally discouraged to cross post on multiple mailing lists. Obviously the co-chairs of the DB-WG cannot declare a consensus on any discussion on this mailing list. But if it looked like the discussion was leading to something tangible for the RIPE Database we could summarise it on the DB-WG mailing list and ask for final comments and declare a consensus there. As it is more or less the same group of people commenting on the two lists, you know you haven't had this discussion on the other list so there is no consensus I could be referring to. So why do I sign as co-chair of the DB-WG on posts on this mailing list? As I have outlined above, I cannot speak 'for' the DB-WG as that has no meaning. But I think it is important to show that this discussion, to a large extent about the RIPE Database, is being followed (some may say driven) by a co-chair of the DB-WG. Then if anything of more concern to the DB-WG than the AP-WG is discussed or suggested, but perhaps not concluded, you know it will be followed up on the DB-WG mailing list. I also do it to indicate to anyone who may not know me, that I am a person who does have some detailed knowledge of the RIPE Database. I am retired so I don't have any job title or corporate name to reference. IF this is a concern to anyone then I could change my signature on future emails to: denis former RIPE NCC Business & Technical Analyst, Designer, Developer, Administrator for the RIPE Database In fact this may be more meaningful. Many people who have been chairs of the DB-WG over the years have only had operator experience of using the RIPE Database. I literally know it inside out, from almost every possible angle for 20+ years. I was never 'just an engineer'. I was even half the legal team for the database with Jochem, before the NCC employed legal professionals. The only experience I don't have is using it as an operator. But that is something most of the rest of you have. cheers denis former RIPE NCC Business & Technical Analyst, Designer, Developer, Administrator for the RIPE Database From mir at zu-hause.nl Mon Oct 16 16:44:15 2023 From: mir at zu-hause.nl (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 14:44:15 +0000 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Who do I speak for? In-Reply-To: References: <3a34fcfa-89eb-5008-fe5b-adff38ca03c3@ripe.net> Message-ID: <871f25f8-a330-15b5-02cd-db5fc79c0109@zu-hause.nl> Hi Denis, Thank you for explaining how you see your role. I would like to clarify a few things you mentioned in your mail. I hope this will be useful especially for RIPE community members who might not have the long history in the community that some of us have. 1. Regarding the role of the RIPE Community: The fact that the RIPE community is not a legal entity and that it is open to anyone who wants to participate, does not mean it is "undefined". From the beginning, the RIPE community has agreed to document its decisions and processes as RIPE documents that are publicly accessible. In the RIPE Terms of Reference (ripe-001) [1] the mission and scope of RIPE is defined. We have a clearly defined policy development process and clearly defined governance processes that the community agrees to follow. Decisions are made by consensus and RIPE documents go through a defined community review. 2. Regarding the relation between RIPE and the RIPE NCC: The RIPE NCC clearly states its role as the secretariat of RIPE in its mission, activity plan and budget. These are formal documents the RIPE NCC members vote on. Also, there is a long track record of the RIPE NCC following guidance from the RIPE community. 3. Regarding the role of a chair: It is the responsibility of a chair to listen and to guide discussions, to summarise and to actively build consensus. Those of us who serve in a special function or have a leadership role are aware of the fact that people tend to see us as being in that role. Therefore we need to take extra care if and when we decide to participate in a discussion as an individual. Kind regards, Mirjam (RIPE Chair) [1] RIPE Terms of Reference https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-001 From ripedenis at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 21:09:47 2023 From: ripedenis at gmail.com (denis walker) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 21:09:47 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Who do I speak for? In-Reply-To: <871f25f8-a330-15b5-02cd-db5fc79c0109@zu-hause.nl> References: <3a34fcfa-89eb-5008-fe5b-adff38ca03c3@ripe.net> <871f25f8-a330-15b5-02cd-db5fc79c0109@zu-hause.nl> Message-ID: Hi Mirjam Thanks for the clarifications. On points 1 and 2 I bow to your better judgements. For point 3 I see your view. But I think I get singled out for unfair criticism here. During my reappointment as co-chair of the DB-WG some people heavily criticised me for taking part in discussions on mailing lists whilst being a co-chair. I believe that was personal and not objective criticism. It was suggested that 'I' am doing something no other chair has ever done and it is wrong. They have short memories. The previous chairs to the current set for the DB-WG were often heavily involved in discussion on the database and other mailing lists. The chairs before them (including the original chair) were also often involved in discussions on multiple lists. So I haven't started a new trend. The (co) chairs of the DB-WG (and perhaps other WGs) have been involved in discussions on various mailing lists since the lists started in 1992. Another interesting observation is that before the current chairs of the DB-WG, ALL previous chairs only ever signed any email with their first name. None of them ever signed anything 'as' a co-chair. Looking at other mailing lists, including this AP-WG, most chairs intermittently sign emails (at least on their own list) with or without the chair title suffix. Again this goes back to the beginning of time. So there doesn't seem to be any convention on how chairs sign emails. Maybe I'll just sign with my name (as many others do), then I can't be criticised for wearing the wrong hat. cheers denis On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 16:44, Mirjam Kuehne wrote: > > Hi Denis, > > Thank you for explaining how you see your role. > > I would like to clarify a few things you mentioned in your mail. I hope > this will be useful especially for RIPE community members who might not > have the long history in the community that some of us have. > > 1. Regarding the role of the RIPE Community: > > The fact that the RIPE community is not a legal entity and that it is > open to anyone who wants to participate, does not mean it is "undefined". > > From the beginning, the RIPE community has agreed to document its > decisions and processes as RIPE documents that are publicly accessible. > In the RIPE Terms of Reference (ripe-001) [1] the mission and scope of > RIPE is defined. We have a clearly defined policy development process > and clearly defined governance processes that the community agrees to > follow. > > Decisions are made by consensus and RIPE documents go through a defined > community review. > > 2. Regarding the relation between RIPE and the RIPE NCC: > > The RIPE NCC clearly states its role as the secretariat of RIPE in its > mission, activity plan and budget. These are formal documents the RIPE > NCC members vote on. > > Also, there is a long track record of the RIPE NCC following guidance > from the RIPE community. > > 3. Regarding the role of a chair: > > It is the responsibility of a chair to listen and to guide discussions, > to summarise and to actively build consensus. > > Those of us who serve in a special function or have a leadership role > are aware of the fact that people tend to see us as being in that role. > Therefore we need to take extra care if and when we decide to > participate in a discussion as an individual. > > Kind regards, > Mirjam > (RIPE Chair) > > > [1] RIPE Terms of Reference > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-001 > > > From phessler at theapt.org Mon Oct 16 21:36:19 2023 From: phessler at theapt.org (Peter Hessler) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 21:36:19 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Who do I speak for? In-Reply-To: References: <871f25f8-a330-15b5-02cd-db5fc79c0109@zu-hause.nl> Message-ID: Denis, Yes, you are correct that that signing your emails saying you are co-chair of DB tells the reader that you are speaking on behalf of the working group. That may or may not be your intention, but that is how people are reading it. No longer signing your emails "co-chair" would be a dramatic improvement, for sure. You could also sign them as "not speaking as co-chair" to be explicit. A lot of the critisim against you has been based on the understanding that you are acting as a dictator and pushing your agenda. You might not agree, but that is how I view your behaviour as co-chair. -peter On 2023 Oct 16 (Mon) at 21:09:47 +0200 (+0200), denis walker wrote: :Hi Mirjam : :Thanks for the clarifications. On points 1 and 2 I bow to your better :judgements. : :For point 3 I see your view. But I think I get singled out for unfair :criticism here. During my reappointment as co-chair of the DB-WG some :people heavily criticised me for taking part in discussions on mailing :lists whilst being a co-chair. I believe that was personal and not :objective criticism. It was suggested that 'I' am doing something no :other chair has ever done and it is wrong. They have short memories. :The previous chairs to the current set for the DB-WG were often :heavily involved in discussion on the database and other mailing :lists. The chairs before them (including the original chair) were also :often involved in discussions on multiple lists. So I haven't started :a new trend. The (co) chairs of the DB-WG (and perhaps other WGs) have :been involved in discussions on various mailing lists since the lists :started in 1992. : :Another interesting observation is that before the current chairs of :the DB-WG, ALL previous chairs only ever signed any email with their :first name. None of them ever signed anything 'as' a co-chair. Looking :at other mailing lists, including this AP-WG, most chairs :intermittently sign emails (at least on their own list) with or :without the chair title suffix. Again this goes back to the beginning :of time. So there doesn't seem to be any convention on how chairs sign :emails. Maybe I'll just sign with my name (as many others do), then I :can't be criticised for wearing the wrong hat. : :cheers :denis : :On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 16:44, Mirjam Kuehne wrote: :> :> Hi Denis, :> :> Thank you for explaining how you see your role. :> :> I would like to clarify a few things you mentioned in your mail. I hope :> this will be useful especially for RIPE community members who might not :> have the long history in the community that some of us have. :> :> 1. Regarding the role of the RIPE Community: :> :> The fact that the RIPE community is not a legal entity and that it is :> open to anyone who wants to participate, does not mean it is "undefined". :> :> From the beginning, the RIPE community has agreed to document its :> decisions and processes as RIPE documents that are publicly accessible. :> In the RIPE Terms of Reference (ripe-001) [1] the mission and scope of :> RIPE is defined. We have a clearly defined policy development process :> and clearly defined governance processes that the community agrees to :> follow. :> :> Decisions are made by consensus and RIPE documents go through a defined :> community review. :> :> 2. Regarding the relation between RIPE and the RIPE NCC: :> :> The RIPE NCC clearly states its role as the secretariat of RIPE in its :> mission, activity plan and budget. These are formal documents the RIPE :> NCC members vote on. :> :> Also, there is a long track record of the RIPE NCC following guidance :> from the RIPE community. :> :> 3. Regarding the role of a chair: :> :> It is the responsibility of a chair to listen and to guide discussions, :> to summarise and to actively build consensus. :> :> Those of us who serve in a special function or have a leadership role :> are aware of the fact that people tend to see us as being in that role. :> Therefore we need to take extra care if and when we decide to :> participate in a discussion as an individual. :> :> Kind regards, :> Mirjam :> (RIPE Chair) :> :> :> [1] RIPE Terms of Reference :> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-001 From gert at space.net Mon Oct 16 22:22:48 2023 From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 22:22:48 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Who do I speak for? In-Reply-To: References: <871f25f8-a330-15b5-02cd-db5fc79c0109@zu-hause.nl> Message-ID: Hi, On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 09:09:47PM +0200, denis walker wrote: > Another interesting observation is that before the current chairs of > the DB-WG, ALL previous chairs only ever signed any email with their > first name. None of them ever signed anything 'as' a co-chair. Looking > at other mailing lists, including this AP-WG, most chairs > intermittently sign emails (at least on their own list) with or > without the chair title suffix. Again this goes back to the beginning > of time. So there doesn't seem to be any convention on how chairs sign > emails. Maybe I'll just sign with my name (as many others do), then I > can't be criticised for wearing the wrong hat. I've had to decide what to put under my name a few times in the last years... one part of it was "inside 'my' working group" (then AP) - I tried to only sign as "APWG chair" when it was in the formal role ("call to order", "summarize a discussion", "announce something"), and putting something else there, like "speaking as LIR contact", when expressing my more personal opinions, based on experience in that role. More interesting is "taking part in a different working group's decision" - there is good reason for "speaking up as WG chair of another WG", like "my WG tasked me to bring across a WG position" or "from experience in our WG, I can offer some advice" - but for me, this always was exceptional, and when I took part in a debate of personal opionions, I tried to leave the WG out of it ("I do not know what my WG wants, so I cannot speak for them")... But you're right this has never been formalized - and I'm not sure it can be done easily. WGs are different, people are different, personalities are. Gert Doering -- frequent mailing list poster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ripedenis at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 00:55:16 2023 From: ripedenis at gmail.com (denis walker) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 00:55:16 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Who do I speak for? In-Reply-To: References: <871f25f8-a330-15b5-02cd-db5fc79c0109@zu-hause.nl> Message-ID: Hi Peter On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 21:36, Peter Hessler wrote: > > Denis, > > Yes, you are correct that that signing your emails saying you are > co-chair of DB tells the reader that you are speaking on behalf of the > working group. That may or may not be your intention, but that is how > people are reading it. No longer signing your emails "co-chair" would > be a dramatic improvement, for sure. You could also sign them as "not > speaking as co-chair" to be explicit. > > A lot of the critisim against you has been based on the understanding > that you are acting as a dictator and pushing your agenda. You might > not agree, but that is how I view your behaviour as co-chair. > One problem with that view...you cannot be a dictator if any agreement to do something needs a consensus of views. This issue has come up a number of times. The only agenda I have is to improve the RIPE Database as a product and service, by consensus, and to maintain the value of a public registry for IP addresses, which is why we are talking on this list at the moment. I would accept that I sometimes behave in a pushy manner, but not dictatorial. And as we have discussed many times, for many issues involving the RIPE Database, if 'I' don't push conversations no one will say anything. The evidence is in the archive. Discussion on many issues won't even start unless I push it onto everyone's agenda. Conversations die quickly if I don't keep pushing it. There are open issues we have been trying to reach a consensus on for 7 years but we average about 1 comment every 6 months. We simply cannot get many people to talk about many of the RIPE Database issues. This is why I made the presentation at the last RIPE Meeting about how we manage the RIPE Database. What we are doing right now is simply not working. We cannot continue trying to manage it in this way. As Leo mentioned some months ago, the number of people contributing to mailing list discussions is extremely low. I also raised the issue of the RIPE Database technology and data model in the recent policy discussion on this list. That is one of those 'bury your head in the sand and pretend I never said it' topics. You can call me dictatorial or pushy or say it is 'my' agenda if you like. But I am retired. If the RIPE Database falls over in a heap and dies, I don't lose any money. Some of you might. The technology is 25 years old. The data model is 25-30 years old. It is not fit for purpose any more. Just look at Ed's impact analysis on assigning a whole allocation (one of those 7 year old open issues). We can't keep hacking it like this. In Iceland Daniel said it is "time to stop tinkering around the edges". That is all we have done ever since. If we implement this feature we will break it for sure. Am I the only person who can see this event on the horizon? Isn't it my duty as a co-chair of the DB-WG to raise awareness of impending doom of this dinosaur? If I was a dictator the RIPE NCC would already be re-developing chunks of the database. Unfortunately I can't even get anyone to talk about it. The RIPE Database is one of the central pillars of the registry. One of the core functions of the RIPE NCC as an RIR, which the members pay for. Yet no matter how many cracks I point out to you, everyone looks the other way. In the end you can talk all you like about my style (again). But is this just a deflection tactic because you don't want to talk about the issues I raise? Clearly there are many different views about the registry. And I haven't even started yet on the recent report on the latest RIPE NCC survey. That has implications for both address policy and the database...but I am sure many of you have already read it and noted those implications. cheers denis > -peter > > > On 2023 Oct 16 (Mon) at 21:09:47 +0200 (+0200), denis walker wrote: > :Hi Mirjam > : > :Thanks for the clarifications. On points 1 and 2 I bow to your better > :judgements. > : > :For point 3 I see your view. But I think I get singled out for unfair > :criticism here. During my reappointment as co-chair of the DB-WG some > :people heavily criticised me for taking part in discussions on mailing > :lists whilst being a co-chair. I believe that was personal and not > :objective criticism. It was suggested that 'I' am doing something no > :other chair has ever done and it is wrong. They have short memories. > :The previous chairs to the current set for the DB-WG were often > :heavily involved in discussion on the database and other mailing > :lists. The chairs before them (including the original chair) were also > :often involved in discussions on multiple lists. So I haven't started > :a new trend. The (co) chairs of the DB-WG (and perhaps other WGs) have > :been involved in discussions on various mailing lists since the lists > :started in 1992. > : > :Another interesting observation is that before the current chairs of > :the DB-WG, ALL previous chairs only ever signed any email with their > :first name. None of them ever signed anything 'as' a co-chair. Looking > :at other mailing lists, including this AP-WG, most chairs > :intermittently sign emails (at least on their own list) with or > :without the chair title suffix. Again this goes back to the beginning > :of time. So there doesn't seem to be any convention on how chairs sign > :emails. Maybe I'll just sign with my name (as many others do), then I > :can't be criticised for wearing the wrong hat. > : > :cheers > :denis > : > :On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 16:44, Mirjam Kuehne wrote: > :> > :> Hi Denis, > :> > :> Thank you for explaining how you see your role. > :> > :> I would like to clarify a few things you mentioned in your mail. I hope > :> this will be useful especially for RIPE community members who might not > :> have the long history in the community that some of us have. > :> > :> 1. Regarding the role of the RIPE Community: > :> > :> The fact that the RIPE community is not a legal entity and that it is > :> open to anyone who wants to participate, does not mean it is "undefined". > :> > :> From the beginning, the RIPE community has agreed to document its > :> decisions and processes as RIPE documents that are publicly accessible. > :> In the RIPE Terms of Reference (ripe-001) [1] the mission and scope of > :> RIPE is defined. We have a clearly defined policy development process > :> and clearly defined governance processes that the community agrees to > :> follow. > :> > :> Decisions are made by consensus and RIPE documents go through a defined > :> community review. > :> > :> 2. Regarding the relation between RIPE and the RIPE NCC: > :> > :> The RIPE NCC clearly states its role as the secretariat of RIPE in its > :> mission, activity plan and budget. These are formal documents the RIPE > :> NCC members vote on. > :> > :> Also, there is a long track record of the RIPE NCC following guidance > :> from the RIPE community. > :> > :> 3. Regarding the role of a chair: > :> > :> It is the responsibility of a chair to listen and to guide discussions, > :> to summarise and to actively build consensus. > :> > :> Those of us who serve in a special function or have a leadership role > :> are aware of the fact that people tend to see us as being in that role. > :> Therefore we need to take extra care if and when we decide to > :> participate in a discussion as an individual. > :> > :> Kind regards, > :> Mirjam > :> (RIPE Chair) > :> > :> > :> [1] RIPE Terms of Reference > :> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-001 From randy at psg.com Tue Oct 17 01:08:46 2023 From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2023 16:08:46 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Who do I speak for? In-Reply-To: References: <871f25f8-a330-15b5-02cd-db5fc79c0109@zu-hause.nl> Message-ID: > We simply cannot get many people to talk about many of the RIPE > Database issues. perhaps wg members are deterred by the walls of text with strong directives and opinions from a dominating co-chair (who lost the election but somehow is still here)? nothing the db wg does is worth the effort and pain, so we just go have coffee and get back to work. randy From ripedenis at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 04:34:47 2023 From: ripedenis at gmail.com (denis walker) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 04:34:47 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Who do I speak for? In-Reply-To: References: <871f25f8-a330-15b5-02cd-db5fc79c0109@zu-hause.nl> Message-ID: Hi Randy Right on queue with another typical comment. On Tue, 17 Oct 2023 at 01:08, Randy Bush wrote: > > > We simply cannot get many people to talk about many of the RIPE > > Database issues. > > perhaps wg members are deterred by the walls of text with strong > directives and opinions from a dominating co-chair (who lost the > election but somehow is still here)? It took walls of text to make people realise that an apparent simple policy proposal to do nothing but introduce a new status value, actually ripped the heart out of address policy and fundamentally changed it. Whether that is a good or bad idea is not the point. If that is what you want to do then be open about it and discuss it, don't hide it. Which makes me wonder about some of those who just said +1. At least I have opinions and as Gert said the last time we discussed this, you are all free to disagree with me and put forward your own ideas. > > nothing the db wg does is worth the effort and pain, so we just go > have coffee and get back to work. You would prefer the DB-WG does nothing? Look back through the archive since the last RIPE Meeting. There has only been one significant discussion and that was actually about routing policy rather than the database. I have deliberately said very little in this period. So if you take out comments from chairs and announcements from the NCC not a lot happened. None of the open issues have gone anywhere. Let's have a serious reality check here. It is not ME who has an agenda or dominates internet policy. It is a small group of the same, very vocal people who dominate all policy discussion. As it says in the RIPE NCC survey report: [Despite high satisfaction with the mailing lists, there are some who say they are ?super old-fashioned and confusing? and have the ?same people commenting all the time?.] It is the agenda of these 'same people' that dominates internet policy. These recurring attacks on my style and detailed analysis are a good diversion tactic to stop people listening to my messages and thinking about the issues I raise. Classic smoke screen approach. Do you actually have an opinion Randy on the 25 year old design of the RIPE Database built around a 25-30 year old data model that is becoming increasingly difficult to change and needed a 1 day course to teach people the basics of using it? Or what about the many commercial investors across this region who received IPv4 allocations from the RIPE NCC and bought some on the open market, not having a clue about internet operations, but know how to make a profit? Or the commercial RIRs sitting below the RIPE NCC who manage all this commercial address space using a distribution structure that simply cannot be represented in the current database data model? Or the hundreds of /29 IPv6 blocks held by these investors that were pretty much unused last time I checked? These are all issues I have mentioned this year but no one will talk about any of them. All you want to talk about is the length of my emails and my style of writing. That gets you out of discussing the slightly more serious issues in my emails. I sometimes wonder why I bother. (There, I have given you the one sentence you can latch on to, comment on sarcastically and ignore the above paragraph.) cheers denis (btw don't anyone ask me to name any of these investors or commercial RIRs or mention the address blocks. That is not my job. Do your own analysis.) > > randy From wusel+ml at uu.org Tue Oct 17 11:18:04 2023 From: wusel+ml at uu.org (Kai 'wusel' Siering) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 11:18:04 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Who do I speak for? In-Reply-To: References: <871f25f8-a330-15b5-02cd-db5fc79c0109@zu-hause.nl> Message-ID: <558FE342-4B52-4890-A414-03A1F0F2C78D@uu.org> People, could we take a minute and reflect on this thread's subject? "[address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Who do I speak for?" ? this is the AP wg's mailing list, and the discussion is not at all about something related to Address Policy. All the prior talk about the RIPE DB doesn't belong here, either. If changes to the (operation or design of the) RIPE DB require changes to Address Policies, let's discuss about it here. Anything else, AFAICS, belongs into its own wg and accompanied mailing list. Thanks, -kai (writing as a netizen) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Tue Oct 17 11:50:02 2023 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 10:50:02 +0100 Subject: [address-policy-wg] off-topic postings in the AP WG mailing list In-Reply-To: <558FE342-4B52-4890-A414-03A1F0F2C78D@uu.org> References: <871f25f8-a330-15b5-02cd-db5fc79c0109@zu-hause.nl> <558FE342-4B52-4890-A414-03A1F0F2C78D@uu.org> Message-ID: > On 17 Oct 2023, at 10:18, Kai 'wusel' Siering via address-policy-wg wrote: > > All the prior talk about the RIPE DB doesn't belong here, either. If changes to the (operation or design of the) RIPE DB require changes to Address Policies, let's discuss about it here. Indeed. > Anything else, AFAICS, belongs into its own wg and accompanied mailing list. IMO a WG for this isn't necessary or desirable. A mailing list ? say time-wasters at ripe.net ? for meta-discussions about turning RIPE into a monument to process might be a good idea. Perhaps that could stop these discussions from cluttering the WG lists. And maybe avoid RIPE sleep-walking into unwelcome clone of process-heavy organisations. Replies and followups to /dev/null since there isn?t (yet) an appropriate list to further discuss this. From wusel+ml at uu.org Tue Oct 17 12:41:24 2023 From: wusel+ml at uu.org (Kai 'wusel' Siering) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 12:41:24 +0200 Subject: [address-policy-wg] off-topic postings in the AP WG mailing list In-Reply-To: References: <871f25f8-a330-15b5-02cd-db5fc79c0109@zu-hause.nl> <558FE342-4B52-4890-A414-03A1F0F2C78D@uu.org> Message-ID: <65cf4806-0d8c-45f8-bf04-a1d10bb9c850@uu.org> Am 17.10.23 um 11:50 schrieb Jim Reid: > IMO a WG for this isn't necessary or desirable. Well, those two sentences were not intended to be read nor understood independently of another. But since you did, please be reminded about https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list ? Reply-To is set appropriately. Regards, -kai From siyuan at misaka.io Wed Oct 25 10:36:30 2023 From: siyuan at misaka.io (Siyuan Miao) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 16:36:30 +0800 Subject: [address-policy-wg] Potential fraud in applying for temporary assignments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi folks We wanted to bring to your attention a matter of concern regarding recent emails from the RIPE member, cn.jiunetwork. They are offering assistance in obtaining temporary IP address assignments from RIPE for one to five years, which seems to conflict with RIPE-801's guidelines. I suggest reviewing past temporary address requests made by them to ensure compliance with RIPE policies and legitimate usage. Original Message from cn.jiunetwork: Now we have new IP address for delivery, it is clean . Subnet size from /24 to /20 ,did you need more ipv4 ? note: we no provide lease service , but if you need , we can help you from RIPE get Temporary Address(/24-/18,TEMPORARY /24 is $1300 years/time, you can purchase 1-5 years ) If you are interested in ordering more, please contact us. my mail is REDACTED -- Siyuan Miao *AS917 | Misaka Network, Inc.* 8 The Green, Ste 6288 Dover, DE 19901 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From leo at vegoda.org Fri Oct 27 03:51:57 2023 From: leo at vegoda.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 18:51:57 -0700 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2023-04 (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments) Message-ID: Dear WG, The Discussion Phase of policy proposal 2023-04 "Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments" has now ended. Many thanks to all for your comments. The proposal will now move forward to the Review Phase. The RIPE NCC will prepare an impact analysis and a draft RIPE Document. More details about the phases of the Policy Development Process are published here: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781 You'll also see an announcement from the RIPE NCC soon. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda for the co-chairs