From arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl Mon Mar 1 09:55:09 2010 From: arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl (Arjan van der Oest) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:55:09 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: <001401cab6ee$3df57a90$b9e06fb0$@ytc.ru> References: <602ACF092EFFB044931BD8746C19AD2F0275E65F@gbcwswiem006.ad.plc.cwintra.com> <4F302F0742B7754C9D0A60991031D938C1102981@EXCHANGE.brightstar.local> <001401cab6ee$3df57a90$b9e06fb0$@ytc.ru> Message-ID: Disclaimer : personal views, not necessarily those of my employer etc, yadayada. Nick wrote: > This is my position too: > 1. ITU as top down policies entity not compatible with current bottom-top > making policies at IP world; > 2. Any country may register own LIR and stay involved to using of IPv6 and > other number resources; > 3. ITU will become as world Internet registry? There is no needs to another > RIR or world Internet Registry. Assuming that ITU is trying to obtain a status similar to that of other RIR's and is not trying to replace ICANN/IANA (it's not exactly clear to me what exactly they are striving for), heaving read and agreeing to all the previous that has being said: What would be wrong with allocating the ITU their own /12 (whatever) and let them distribute this among their members. Yes, they will become a worldwide super-RIR, but as long as the other RIR's are not interfered with? As an telco/isp I would have the choice of option: request my IPv6 space from RIPE or from the ITU. As long as they don't interfere with ICANN/IANA or the RIR's, what 'danger' would ITU impose? There is no need for 500 domain registrars and still we have lots of options to choose from. Competition is not a bad thing. -- Met vriendelijke groet / Kind Regards, Worldmax Operations B.V. Arjan van der Oest Network Design Engineer T.: +31 (0) 88 001 7912 F.: +31 (0) 88 001 7902 M.: +31 (0) 6 10 62 58 46 E.: arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl W.:www.worldmax.nl W.:www.aerea.nl GPG: https://keyserver.pgp.com/ (Key ID: 07286F78, fingerprint: 2E9F 3AE2 0A8B 7579 75A9 169F 5D9E 5312 0728 6F78) Internet communications are not secure; therefore, the integrity of this e-mail cannot be guaranteed following transmission on the Internet. This e-mail may contain confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail. Use of this e-mail by any person other than the addressee is strictly forbidden. This e-mail is believed to be free of any virus that might adversely affect the addressee's computer system; however, no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. All the preceding disclaimers also apply to any possible attachments to this e-mail. From andy at nosignal.org Mon Mar 1 12:06:56 2010 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:06:56 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: <18a5e7cb1002261459p2ef6ac14leb86ab384337c148@mail.gmail.com> References: <20100226170924.99ADB1CC0E@ptavv.es.net> <1267208530.26166.15.camel@ub-g-d2> <4B8843F4.9070108@foobar.org> <18a5e7cb1002261459p2ef6ac14leb86ab384337c148@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B8B9FD0.4010302@nosignal.org> On 26/02/2010 22:59, Bill Stewart wrote to nanog: > Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see the problem. The ITU is magic. I am no expert, but I am aware that sometimes the ITU decision making processes leads to member states having to adopt those decisions as telecoms law. I would not want to replace the very good address policy that I follow today with laws and procedures that look like the ones used for telephone numbers. This is a very real danger. That governments can form telecoms law, leads me to the conclusion that we can have an RIR led addressing structure *or* a government one, and not both. > One of the great things about IPv6's address space being > mindbogglingly large is that there's plenty of it to experiment with. No. My IPv6 network is production now. As are the IPv6 networks of many other people on the list. Please don't do experiments with addressing policy, such behaviour tends to leave a nasty legacy. On 01/03/2010 08:55, Arjan van der Oest wrote to members-discuss: > Competition is not a bad thing. Competition would be if I could approach the NCC or Pepsi Cola for my integers for use on the internet. It is not competition if the government makes me ask them for some integers. Andy From arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl Mon Mar 1 15:04:21 2010 From: arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl (Arjan van der Oest) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:04:21 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: <4B8B9FD0.4010302@nosignal.org> References: <20100226170924.99ADB1CC0E@ptavv.es.net> <1267208530.26166.15.camel@ub-g-d2> <4B8843F4.9070108@foobar.org> <18a5e7cb1002261459p2ef6ac14leb86ab384337c148@mail.gmail.com> <4B8B9FD0.4010302@nosignal.org> Message-ID: Andy wrote: >> Competition is not a bad thing. >Competition would be if I could approach the NCC or Pepsi Cola for my >integers for use on the internet. It is not competition if the >government makes me ask them for some integers. Assuming that ITU would become a nationwide alternative RIR, you still have the choice to approach NCC, wouldn't you? Not sure if Pepsi would be the right comparison for the ITU ;-) -- Met vriendelijke groet / Kind Regards, Worldmax Operations B.V. Arjan van der Oest Network Design Engineer T.: +31 (0) 88 001 7912 F.: +31 (0) 88 001 7902 M.: +31 (0) 6 10 62 58 46 E.: arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl W.:www.worldmax.nl W.:www.aerea.nl GPG: https://keyserver.pgp.com/ (Key ID: 07286F78, fingerprint: 2E9F 3AE2 0A8B 7579 75A9 169F 5D9E 5312 0728 6F78) Internet communications are not secure; therefore, the integrity of this e-mail cannot be guaranteed following transmission on the Internet. This e-mail may contain confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail. Use of this e-mail by any person other than the addressee is strictly forbidden. This e-mail is believed to be free of any virus that might adversely affect the addressee's computer system; however, no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. All the preceding disclaimers also apply to any possible attachments to this e-mail. From andy at nosignal.org Mon Mar 1 15:07:41 2010 From: andy at nosignal.org (Andy Davidson) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:07:41 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: References: <20100226170924.99ADB1CC0E@ptavv.es.net> <1267208530.26166.15.camel@ub-g-d2> <4B8843F4.9070108@foobar.org> <18a5e7cb1002261459p2ef6ac14leb86ab384337c148@mail.gmail.com> <4B8B9FD0.4010302@nosignal.org> Message-ID: <4B8BCA2D.3000505@nosignal.org> On 01/03/2010 14:04, Arjan van der Oest wrote: > Andy wrote: >>> Competition is not a bad thing. >> Competition would be if I could approach the NCC or Pepsi Cola for my >> integers for use on the internet. It is not competition if the >> government makes me ask them for some integers. > Assuming that ITU would become a nationwide alternative RIR, you still > have the choice to approach NCC, wouldn't you? Why would this automatically be the case ? If governments were required to distribute addresses via the national regulator, then the freedom of choice would NOT be the case. > Not sure if Pepsi would be the right comparison for the ITU ;-) My point entirely. :-) Andy From arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl Mon Mar 1 15:24:23 2010 From: arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl (Arjan van der Oest) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:24:23 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: <4B8BCA2D.3000505@nosignal.org> References: <20100226170924.99ADB1CC0E@ptavv.es.net> <1267208530.26166.15.camel@ub-g-d2> <4B8843F4.9070108@foobar.org> <18a5e7cb1002261459p2ef6ac14leb86ab384337c148@mail.gmail.com> <4B8B9FD0.4010302@nosignal.org> <4B8BCA2D.3000505@nosignal.org> Message-ID: Andy scribbled: >>>> Competition is not a bad thing. >>> Competition would be if I could approach the NCC or Pepsi Cola for my >>> integers for use on the internet. It is not competition if the >>> government makes me ask them for some integers. >> Assuming that ITU would become a nationwide alternative RIR, you still >> have the choice to approach NCC, wouldn't you? > >Why would this automatically be the case ? If governments were required >to distribute addresses via the national regulator, then the freedom of >choice would NOT be the case. True. Like I said in my initial reply to members-discuss (and while playing a devil's advocate role), I'm not entirely sure what it is that ITU is striving for : replacing IANA or just becoming a nationwide RIR. In the latter case this would not automatically mean (also assuming that local governments will not further interfere in this process) that ITU would be your one and only one-stop-shop for integers. But anyhow, don't get me wrong. I agree with all that has been said on why and how ITU is trying to get a grip on packet switched communication networks. My only point it that it might not be a bad idea to ponder on the subject of allowing competition between RIR's in the same geographical aerea and hence allow ITU to achieve the status of nationwide RIR. If Telco's want to request their IP's from ITU instead of RIPE, they have my utterly blessings... *zipping my Dr. Pepper* -- Met vriendelijke groet / Kind Regards, Worldmax Operations B.V. Arjan van der Oest Network Design Engineer T.: +31 (0) 88 001 7912 F.: +31 (0) 88 001 7902 M.: +31 (0) 6 10 62 58 46 E.: arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl W.:www.worldmax.nl W.:www.aerea.nl GPG: https://keyserver.pgp.com/ (Key ID: 07286F78, fingerprint: 2E9F 3AE2 0A8B 7579 75A9 169F 5D9E 5312 0728 6F78) Internet communications are not secure; therefore, the integrity of this e-mail cannot be guaranteed following transmission on the Internet. This e-mail may contain confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail. Use of this e-mail by any person other than the addressee is strictly forbidden. This e-mail is believed to be free of any virus that might adversely affect the addressee's computer system; however, no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. All the preceding disclaimers also apply to any possible attachments to this e-mail. From zoe at hotchilli.com Mon Mar 1 15:39:08 2010 From: zoe at hotchilli.com (Zoe O'Connell) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:39:08 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: References: <20100226170924.99ADB1CC0E@ptavv.es.net> <1267208530.26166.15.camel@ub-g-d2> <4B8843F4.9070108@foobar.org> <18a5e7cb1002261459p2ef6ac14leb86ab384337c148@mail.gmail.com> <4B8B9FD0.4010302@nosignal.org> <4B8BCA2D.3000505@nosignal.org> Message-ID: <4B8BD18C.7020207@hotchilli.com> Arjan van der Oest wrote: > But anyhow, don't get me wrong. I agree with all that has been said on > why and how ITU is trying to get a grip on packet switched communication > networks. My only point it that it might not be a bad idea to ponder on > the subject of allowing competition between RIR's in the same > geographical aerea and hence allow ITU to achieve the status of > nationwide RIR. This presumes that competition that results in providing services more attractive (Not necessarily just lower monetary cost) to those applying for IP addresses is a good thing - I would argue very strongly that in fact this is something to be avoided. I can think of a few situations where the efforts of RIPE policy groups would be thwarted by having to "compete" with another IR. In particular, aggregation, accountability (RIPE 2007-01!) and address space preservation policies would all come under pressure from competition if the ITU or another body operated a more lax policy than the existing RIRs. (Presumably, other RIRs would be similarly affected, but I am not particularly well versed about other RIRs policies) I think we have to be careful here to avoid Hardin's "Tragedy of the commons" where the needs of the individuals is put above the needs of the whole. The current system, which is heavily influenced by Service Providers who are the primary stakeholders both commercially and technically in this works well. It's not ideal - one of my pet gripes is that the PI Address Space system often gets overlooked as end users that require SP independence have little voice, plus there's an obvious problem with developing nations coming late to the party and getting a smaller piece of the IPv4 pie but IPv6 hopefully fixes that anyway. I still feel it's better than trying to arrange competition. From MEttema at alkmaar.nl Mon Mar 1 15:52:04 2010 From: MEttema at alkmaar.nl (Michiel Ettema) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:52:04 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: References: <20100226170924.99ADB1CC0E@ptavv.es.net> <1267208530.26166.15.camel@ub-g-d2> <4B8843F4.9070108@foobar.org> <18a5e7cb1002261459p2ef6ac14leb86ab384337c148@mail.gmail.com> <4B8B9FD0.4010302@nosignal.org> <4B8BCA2D.3000505@nosignal.org> Message-ID: Maybe this will give you an insight in what is planned: http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/oth/01/0B/D010B0000073301PDFE.pdf page 89. - 777 - 14. As the use of the Internet and other new technologies increase, - more criminals are provided with opportunities to commit crimes remotely, - via telephone lines and data networks. Presently, malicious programming - code and harmful communications (such as child pornography) may pass - through several carriers located in different countries. And - infrastructures such as banking and finance increasingly are becoming - networked and thereby vulnerable to cyber-attack from distant locations. - We convene today to provide additional personal attention to and - direction for our joint action against this transnational criminality. If the ITU gets registry status I think it wil not be long before their Cybercrime legislation proposals will state that the only safe adres space is ITU adres space. This because a country can subject that adres space to their own laws. Now excuse me a minute while I fold my tin foil hat. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] Namens Arjan van der Oest Verzonden: maandag 1 maart 2010 15:24 Aan: Andy Davidson; members-discuss at ripe.net; nanog at nanog.org Onderwerp: RE: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Andy scribbled: >>>> Competition is not a bad thing. >>> Competition would be if I could approach the NCC or Pepsi Cola for my >>> integers for use on the internet. It is not competition if the >>> government makes me ask them for some integers. >> Assuming that ITU would become a nationwide alternative RIR, you still >> have the choice to approach NCC, wouldn't you? > >Why would this automatically be the case ? If governments were required >to distribute addresses via the national regulator, then the freedom of >choice would NOT be the case. True. Like I said in my initial reply to members-discuss (and while playing a devil's advocate role), I'm not entirely sure what it is that ITU is striving for : replacing IANA or just becoming a nationwide RIR. In the latter case this would not automatically mean (also assuming that local governments will not further interfere in this process) that ITU would be your one and only one-stop-shop for integers. But anyhow, don't get me wrong. I agree with all that has been said on why and how ITU is trying to get a grip on packet switched communication networks. My only point it that it might not be a bad idea to ponder on the subject of allowing competition between RIR's in the same geographical aerea and hence allow ITU to achieve the status of nationwide RIR. If Telco's want to request their IP's from ITU instead of RIPE, they have my utterly blessings... *zipping my Dr. Pepper* -- Met vriendelijke groet / Kind Regards, Worldmax Operations B.V. Arjan van der Oest Network Design Engineer T.: +31 (0) 88 001 7912 F.: +31 (0) 88 001 7902 M.: +31 (0) 6 10 62 58 46 E.: arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl W.:www.worldmax.nl W.:www.aerea.nl GPG: https://keyserver.pgp.com/ (Key ID: 07286F78, fingerprint: 2E9F 3AE2 0A8B 7579 75A9 169F 5D9E 5312 0728 6F78) Internet communications are not secure; therefore, the integrity of this e-mail cannot be guaranteed following transmission on the Internet. This e-mail may contain confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail. Use of this e-mail by any person other than the addressee is strictly forbidden. This e-mail is believed to be free of any virus that might adversely affect the addressee's computer system; however, no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. All the preceding disclaimers also apply to any possible attachments to this e-mail. ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. ================================================================== ================================================================== Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar: Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden. No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message. ================================================================== From jon at fido.net Mon Mar 1 15:07:50 2010 From: jon at fido.net (Jon Morby | fido) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 14:07:50 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: References: <20100226170924.99ADB1CC0E@ptavv.es.net> <1267208530.26166.15.camel@ub-g-d2> <4B8843F4.9070108@foobar.org> <18a5e7cb1002261459p2ef6ac14leb86ab384337c148@mail.gmail.com> <4B8B9FD0.4010302@nosignal.org> Message-ID: On 1 Mar 2010, at 14:04, Arjan van der Oest wrote: > Andy wrote: > >>> Competition is not a bad thing. > >> Competition would be if I could approach the NCC or Pepsi Cola for my >> integers for use on the internet. It is not competition if the >> government makes me ask them for some integers. > > Assuming that ITU would become a nationwide alternative RIR, you still > have the choice to approach NCC, wouldn't you? > > Not sure if Pepsi would be the right comparison for the ITU ;-) > Oh I don't know ... the whole concept leaves a nasty taste in my mouth ... :) > -- > Met vriendelijke groet / Kind Regards, > Worldmax Operations B.V. > > Arjan van der Oest > Network Design Engineer > > T.: +31 (0) 88 001 7912 > F.: +31 (0) 88 001 7902 > M.: +31 (0) 6 10 62 58 46 > > E.: arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl > W.:www.worldmax.nl > W.:www.aerea.nl > GPG: https://keyserver.pgp.com/ (Key ID: 07286F78, fingerprint: 2E9F > 3AE2 0A8B 7579 75A9 169F 5D9E 5312 0728 6F78) > > Internet communications are not secure; therefore, the integrity of this e-mail cannot be guaranteed following transmission on the Internet. This e-mail may contain confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail. Use of this e-mail by any person other than the addressee is strictly forbidden. This e-mail is believed to be free of any virus that might adversely affect the addressee's computer system; however, no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. All the preceding disclaimers also apply to any possible attachments to this e-mail. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. Regards, Jon Morby FidoNet Registration Services Ltd web: www.fido.net tel: +44 (0) 845 004 3050 fax: +44 (0) 845 004 3051 From sven at cb3rob.net Mon Mar 1 16:19:38 2010 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:19:38 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd) Message-ID: There you go. let the riots commence 2.0.... keep in mind, most telcos and ISPs (the founders and members of the current IANA -> RIRS -> LIRs model resulting in a global internet which is hard to censor) do not agree on this ITU proposal... it's just that the UN and their ITU do... If we allow them to go forward, this WILL result in a "per country" easy-to-filter internet in a few years when ipv6 is the only serious protocol left. we only need to point out how easy it was for the DDR to simply route all phonecalls to "the west" through a room where people monitored telephone conversations, and this "country specific prefix" is just what the ITU seems to want for the internet. In order to accomplish that they want to create their own address registry, for now "secondary" to the ISP/telco run bottom-down RIR system (RIPE,ARIN,APNIC,AFRINIC,APNIC) but ofcourse we can't expect it to take long before repressive governments start to force "the internets" "in their country" to use only the ITU registry... also very nice of them to invite the "RIRS" to be present at their little negotiation rounds, where the RIRS can each have one vote against oh eh, 150 or so of their members... very democratic.. 5 against 150.. And i bet you they'll go "yes but the RIRs were present at our meetings" in the end, so its better to just send them a letter telling them to stick it where the sun doesn't shine and not even go to their little meetings. How does this relate to our situation in germany: Now for those complaining about me posting to the piratenpartei lists in ENOTGERMAN, too bad for you people... the world is slightly larger than those 140 million or so people that use german on a daily basis. I can personally assure you von der leyen and schaubele would have had wet dreams about this ITU proposal a few months ago still..., and you never know, we may get simular politicians again in the future... (makes it -really- easy to filter all kinds of government-undesired content and activities...) now -we- can always move our office to some other country and take our tax money to some other resort, not a biggie, but don't come complaining to me when germany at some point uses this to build their own chinese bigass golden firewall with flames coming out of its ass to make it faster. i'd say its better to simply not give them the chance to do so. methods available to isps/telcos to stop this: - point out to governments that -we- own the internet, their economy runs over it as a "courtesy" and that we can send them back to the stoneage at any time we like by simply dropping 'their' traffic. (considering the fact that governments themselves are not capable of running anything but a gray-cheese-with-a-dial telephone network, they don't have any other option than to remain friends with us, while -we- can move our business to -any- of the 208 countries or so worldwide, wether the UN likes those countries or not, and pay taxes -there-, and most of the likely candidates are nice and warm and have a beach too and are willing to make deals in the "guaranteed information freedom" aspect ;) - if they get this done, simply ignore their registry, maybe introduce overlaps - if they get this done, drop the whole ipv6 implementation plans and move on to some "next" protocol or even keep ipv4 around if we have to. they need us, we don't need them Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what has your country ever done for you. we have the biggest stick in this matter. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:52:04 +0100 From: Michiel Ettema To: members-discuss at ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Maybe this will give you an insight in what is planned: http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/oth/01/0B/D010B0000073301PDFE.pdf page 89. - 777 - 14. As the use of the Internet and other new technologies increase, - more criminals are provided with opportunities to commit crimes remotely, - via telephone lines and data networks. Presently, malicious programming - code and harmful communications (such as child pornography) may pass - through several carriers located in different countries. And - infrastructures such as banking and finance increasingly are becoming - networked and thereby vulnerable to cyber-attack from distant locations. - We convene today to provide additional personal attention to and - direction for our joint action against this transnational criminality. If the ITU gets registry status I think it wil not be long before their Cybercrime legislation proposals will state that the only safe adres space is ITU adres space. This because a country can subject that adres space to their own laws. Now excuse me a minute while I fold my tin foil hat. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net] Namens Arjan van der Oest Verzonden: maandag 1 maart 2010 15:24 Aan: Andy Davidson; members-discuss at ripe.net; nanog at nanog.org Onderwerp: RE: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Andy scribbled: >>>> Competition is not a bad thing. >>> Competition would be if I could approach the NCC or Pepsi Cola for my >>> integers for use on the internet. It is not competition if the >>> government makes me ask them for some integers. >> Assuming that ITU would become a nationwide alternative RIR, you still >> have the choice to approach NCC, wouldn't you? > >Why would this automatically be the case ? If governments were required >to distribute addresses via the national regulator, then the freedom of >choice would NOT be the case. True. Like I said in my initial reply to members-discuss (and while playing a devil's advocate role), I'm not entirely sure what it is that ITU is striving for : replacing IANA or just becoming a nationwide RIR. In the latter case this would not automatically mean (also assuming that local governments will not further interfere in this process) that ITU would be your one and only one-stop-shop for integers. But anyhow, don't get me wrong. I agree with all that has been said on why and how ITU is trying to get a grip on packet switched communication networks. My only point it that it might not be a bad idea to ponder on the subject of allowing competition between RIR's in the same geographical aerea and hence allow ITU to achieve the status of nationwide RIR. If Telco's want to request their IP's from ITU instead of RIPE, they have my utterly blessings... *zipping my Dr. Pepper* -- Met vriendelijke groet / Kind Regards, Worldmax Operations B.V. Arjan van der Oest Network Design Engineer T.: +31 (0) 88 001 7912 F.: +31 (0) 88 001 7902 M.: +31 (0) 6 10 62 58 46 E.: arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl W.:www.worldmax.nl W.:www.aerea.nl GPG: https://keyserver.pgp.com/ (Key ID: 07286F78, fingerprint: 2E9F 3AE2 0A8B 7579 75A9 169F 5D9E 5312 0728 6F78) Internet communications are not secure; therefore, the integrity of this e-mail cannot be guaranteed following transmission on the Internet. This e-mail may contain confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail. Use of this e-mail by any person other than the addressee is strictly forbidden. This e-mail is believed to be free of any virus that might adversely affect the addressee's computer system; however, no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. All the preceding disclaimers also apply to any possible attachments to this e-mail. ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. ================================================================== ================================================================== Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar: Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden. No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message. ================================================================== ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ First click on General and then click on Edit. At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. From sven at cb3rob.net Mon Mar 1 16:30:44 2010 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 15:30:44 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE invoice 2010-I Message-ID: we noticed ripe bills as numbers in use by the LIR -themselves- as "Independant resources" rather than the points-based billing model.. surely this was not what the 2007-1 policy was intended to do? i'd say AS numbers in use by the lir themselves fall under the normal points model still, just like PA ipv4 and ipv6 resources... exactly what is so "independant" about our OWN AS number remains unclear to me. scrape a few extra bucks for ripe. RIPE billing department in the mean while claims that this is not an error... From arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl Mon Mar 1 16:42:15 2010 From: arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl (Arjan van der Oest) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 16:42:15 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: CB3ROB scribbled: > let the riots commence 2.0.... Oh dear oh dear... >keep in mind, most telcos and ISPs (the founders and members of the >current IANA -> RIRS -> LIRs model resulting in a global internet which is >hard to censor) do not agree on this ITU proposal... I wonder who those ITU members are then? Are those all currently non-internet-offering telco's? > If we allow them to go forward, this WILL result in a "per country" > easy-to-filter internet in a few years when ipv6 is the only serious > protocol left. /me hands CB3ROB some tinfoil and mumbles : "believers, start your FOLDING!" > we only need to point out how easy it was for the DDR to simply route > all phonecalls to "the west" through a room where people monitored > telephone conversations, and this "country specific prefix" is just what > the ITU seems to want for the internet. Not comparing this to the former-DDR or Chinese situation (please refer to my tin-foil remark above) a per-country specific prefix is not necessarily a bad thing and may even have an upside. > In order to accomplish that they want to create their own address > registry, for now "secondary" to the ISP/telco run bottom-down RIR system > (RIPE,ARIN,APNIC,AFRINIC,APNIC) but ofcourse we can't expect it to take > long before repressive governments start to force "the internets" "in > their country" to use only the ITU registry... Why? > now -we- can always move our office to some other country and take our tax > money to some other resort, not a biggie, but don't come complaining to me > when germany at some point uses this to build their own chinese bigass > golden firewall with flames coming out of its ass to make it faster. Sven, I think several less-democratic nations have already proven that if they require total control of the internet within the boundaries of their country (sic) they can and will implement this anyhow. They don't require ITU nor the UN for this. They will just demand Cisco and Google to implement it and the corporate chiefs will just answer "How soon?"... > methods available to isps/telcos to stop this: > > - point out to governments that -we- own the internet You don't 'own' the internet, at most you own the infra within your own AS. At least you and others don't own my part of the internet :) >their economy runs >over it as a "courtesy" and that we can send them back to the stoneage at >any time we like by simply dropping 'their' traffic. Now that is a very smart thing to say. Another reason for the UN to gain total control... Go on, hand them more sticks. > (considering the fact that governments themselves are not capable of >running anything but a gray-cheese-with-a-dial telephone network Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run network... > they need us, we don't need them If they install legislation that forbids anyone without a license to run a telecommunications network of ANY kind, surely you need them, with or without ITU and/or RIR's. > Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what has your country ever > done for you. Oh please Sven, let's not go there :) > we have the biggest stick in this matter. *bzzzz* Sorry, wrong again. The government ultimately draws the longest straw. Always... If they want to, they will. Now let's stop folding tin hats. -- Met vriendelijke groet / Kind Regards, Worldmax Operations B.V. Arjan van der Oest Network Design Engineer T.: +31 (0) 88 001 7912 F.: +31 (0) 88 001 7902 M.: +31 (0) 6 10 62 58 46 E.: arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl W.:www.worldmax.nl W.:www.aerea.nl GPG: https://keyserver.pgp.com/ (Key ID: 07286F78, fingerprint: 2E9F 3AE2 0A8B 7579 75A9 169F 5D9E 5312 0728 6F78) Internet communications are not secure; therefore, the integrity of this e-mail cannot be guaranteed following transmission on the Internet. This e-mail may contain confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail. Use of this e-mail by any person other than the addressee is strictly forbidden. This e-mail is believed to be free of any virus that might adversely affect the addressee's computer system; however, no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. All the preceding disclaimers also apply to any possible attachments to this e-mail. From awaite at tuenti.com Mon Mar 1 16:55:43 2010 From: awaite at tuenti.com (Adam Waite) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:55:43 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B8BE37F.8010705@tuenti.com> > Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run > network... > > Not since 1992......what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc. ARPANET only lives on in reverse dns..... From arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl Mon Mar 1 17:21:11 2010 From: arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl (Arjan van der Oest) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:21:11 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: <044331CC-C797-4E21-AD6F-E3534AD0AB62@me.com> References: <20100226170924.99ADB1CC0E@ptavv.es.net> <1267208530.26166.15.camel@ub-g-d2> <4B8843F4.9070108@foobar.org> <18a5e7cb1002261459p2ef6ac14leb86ab384337c148@mail.gmail.com> <4B8B9FD0.4010302@nosignal.org> <4B8BCA2D.3000505@nosignal.org> <044331CC-C797-4E21-AD6F-E3534AD0AB62@me.com> Message-ID: Skeeve wrote: > Are you really serious about that? The issues seem to me much bigger than > competition though. Yes sir, in theory/conceptually. > The ITU - being an RIR wouldn't satisfy what it seems to setting out trying to > do. Making them an RIR under the current system seems pointless as they aren't > giving off much of a 'team player' vibe... more a fanatical religious > vibe.. They will just define their own policies - which in the end may have an > actual realised negative impact on the routing system - the details of which are > for a different discussion. Again: as long as they don't interfere with IANA and RIR's and assuming there is no aluminum hat conspiracy that tries to achieve world-domination-via-ipv6 I wish them all the best. If they wish to implement some ridiculous policies concerning the assignment of IPv6 space via the ITU, let them. The result will be that all the telco's and ISP's will continue to use the current RIR's and ITU will prove their existence is useless. > Given that the ITU, like the RIR, are a member driven system.... that to me > suggests that there are specific members who are pushing for this... I've heard > 'Syria' being tossed around as an agitator in this... but that there are other > supporters who are not happy with the US Government dominance/control of the > process. Which I can imagine, without the urge to start a political discussion here :) > But the RIR system has been running for a long time... and 'not badly' for the > most part.... so why do we really need to change anything? Why are people so scared of change? It's not a bad thing... > Really.. if there were MASSIVE problems with the RIR system, the members would > have kicked some ass a long time ago. Imho there is no massive problem with the RIR system, although there is always room for improvement. Again, my only point is: allocating space to ITU may settle whatever worries they have. I'm just trying to point out that competition (and change) are not a bad thing and I'm reluctant to start seeking conspiracies about world domination via ipv6. Let's see what it is ITU is *really* trying to get done, let's chat about it and then let's see what is wise. With all respect to Sven Kamphuis, that is exactly the reaction I would not see as the best towards the UN and ITU. Just my 2 cents -- Met vriendelijke groet / Kind Regards, Worldmax Operations B.V. Arjan van der Oest Network Design Engineer T.: +31 (0) 88 001 7912 F.: +31 (0) 88 001 7902 M.: +31 (0) 6 10 62 58 46 E.: arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl W.:www.worldmax.nl W.:www.aerea.nl GPG: https://keyserver.pgp.com/ (Key ID: 07286F78, fingerprint: 2E9F 3AE2 0A8B 7579 75A9 169F 5D9E 5312 0728 6F78) Internet communications are not secure; therefore, the integrity of this e-mail cannot be guaranteed following transmission on the Internet. This e-mail may contain confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and erase this e-mail. Use of this e-mail by any person other than the addressee is strictly forbidden. This e-mail is believed to be free of any virus that might adversely affect the addressee's computer system; however, no responsibility is accepted for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. All the preceding disclaimers also apply to any possible attachments to this e-mail. From dettenbach at skyway.net Mon Mar 1 17:53:44 2010 From: dettenbach at skyway.net (Niels Dettenbach) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 17:53:44 +0100 Subject: AW: RE: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd) Message-ID: <2CxCrcZ1knRH.sCDm7Gmy@auth.smtp.kundenserver.de> > ... several less-democratic nations have already proven ... Shurely? This seems new to me, even if some countries try this hard. Even in countries with hard laws of regulation exist's private or "non-regulated" IP communication over satellite or other (typically "wireless") media or - if IP exist in such countries but is controlled - over simple to use anonymizer and/or mixer proxies by encrypted connections. And btw: Even simple things like hard encryption was not allowed in many "developed" countries (US, Europa) over many years (which brought up south africans like Marc S. and others...). Afaik using a sat dish in countries like Iran or Burma (myan mar) was/is not allowed without a "public" governmental license but more or less of the peoples there run "illegal" dishes to receive satellite TV, radio and / or IP communication. I'm from the former GDR (DDR) and im shure that our former government (if it still exist) would tried to "control" or "block" IP communication at all and "effective as possible" but - as i remember - they wasn't able to control any communication (even if electronical communication was accessible by only a few geeks or freaks). Most spreaden "international communication" the peoples got was the western broadcast media (i.e. western german TV which was "not allowed" to see/show). It was not possible to block or even disturb it over longer times and larger areas for them - they tried it often enough. But, a country specific network adressing will give such regimes or governments new internationally "approved" policies to control national communication on a new level - possibly with "full" legislation by the highest international communities like the UN. Cheers, Niels. From MEttema at alkmaar.nl Mon Mar 1 21:42:50 2010 From: MEttema at alkmaar.nl (Michiel Ettema) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 21:42:50 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd) References: Message-ID: See interspersed text -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net on behalf of Arjan van der Oest Sent: Mon 1-3-2010 16:42 >> keep in mind, most telcos and ISPs (the founders and members of the >> current IANA -> RIRS -> LIRs model resulting in a global internet >> which is hard to censor) do not agree on this ITU proposal... > I wonder who those ITU members are then? Are those all currently > non-internet-offering telco's? Well, at least not the European telco's, see http://www.ripe.net/info/internet-management/etno-ipv6-200501.html > ...a per-country specific prefix is not > necessarily a bad thing and may even have an upside. OK, I'd really like to know the upside then. And why wouldn't the current system be able to provide this ? >> their economy runs over it as a "courtesy" and that >> we can send them back to the stoneage at any time >> we like by simply dropping 'their' traffic. > Now that is a very smart thing to say. Another reason for the UN to gain > total control... Go on, hand them more sticks. I'm totally with you on that one. Threats are counterproductive. >> (considering the fact that governments themselves are not capable of >> running anything but a gray-cheese-with-a-dial telephone network > Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run > network... Governments themselves don't need or want to run a network. They want operators that do that for them according to their rules. I'm sure there are operators that would be happy to oblige. As for now and asked earlier what benefit could the ITU as internet registry bring us ? The negative sides I see are: -more complex routing because of decreased aggregation (beaten to death already) -if the ITU wants to make policies for their address space and publishes them the same way as their standards they will not be openly and freely available. -if the ITU wants to make policies for their address space, operators need to do extra investments and effort to provide for two, possibly contradicting, policy frameworks. ================================================================== ================================================================== Disclaimer Gemeente Alkmaar: Aan dit mailbericht kunnen geen rechten ontleend worden. No rights can be derived from the contents of this E-mail message. ================================================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egrosbein at rdtc.ru Tue Mar 2 05:57:08 2010 From: egrosbein at rdtc.ru (Eugene Grosbein) Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 11:57:08 +0700 Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE invoice 2010-I In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B8C9AA4.2080306@rdtc.ru> Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > we noticed ripe bills as numbers in use by the LIR -themselves- > as "Independant resources" rather than the points-based billing model.. > > surely this was not what the 2007-1 policy was intended to do? > > i'd say AS numbers in use by the lir themselves fall under the normal > points model still, just like PA ipv4 and ipv6 resources... > > exactly what is so "independant" about our OWN AS number remains unclear > to me. > > scrape a few extra bucks for ripe. > > RIPE billing department in the mean while claims that this is not an > error... Last year I've got such remark from RIPE: > If this AS number is in use by your LIR, you can select the option "My > Infrastructure" in the interface provided in the LIR Portal: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/lirportal/index.html > LIR Portal -> Independent Resources > > I hope this clarifies. > Kind regards, > > Andrea Cima > RIPE NCC Have you marked your AS number such way? Eugene Grosbein From jmamodio at gmail.com Mon Mar 1 17:08:10 2010 From: jmamodio at gmail.com (Jorge Amodio) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:08:10 -0600 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: References: <20100226170924.99ADB1CC0E@ptavv.es.net> <4B8843F4.9070108@foobar.org> <18a5e7cb1002261459p2ef6ac14leb86ab384337c148@mail.gmail.com> <4B8B9FD0.4010302@nosignal.org> <4B8BCA2D.3000505@nosignal.org> Message-ID: <202705b1003010808g42807573m7e45561c9ec9c0a2@mail.gmail.com> > But anyhow, don't get me wrong. I agree with all that has been said on > why and how ITU is trying to get a grip on packet switched communication > networks. My only point it that it might not be a bad idea to ponder on > the subject of allowing competition between RIR's in the same > geographical aerea and hence allow ITU to achieve the status of > nationwide RIR. That will be an extremely bad idea. ITU is aspiring to be a global RIR. Once upon a time since the network architecture/protocols/technology required the assignment/allocation of particular object identifiers that must be globally unique we had Jon Postel's authoritative notepad that later assumed the IANA name and became institutionalized as ICANNzilla. On the address space IANA delegates part of its authority to regional registries and even when there are some common practices and guidelines/policies, each registry establishes its own policies via a bottom-up policy development process for address allocation and how to deal with issues associated with this practice. Since there are requirements/policies associated, each RIR indirectly acts as a soft "regulator" by applying the terms and conditions and collecting fees. It is not a perfect "system" and if something is wrong with a particular RIR or policy that is what needs to be fixed, not create an alternative channel that intends to override the existing "authority" delegation tree by developing its own policies and trying to enforce them through national governments telecom regulations, which imho is what ITU is attempting to do. Basic example (bah very stupid one), Johnny SPAM-BoTnEt on country XX wants IP address space for his operations that in XX-land may not be considered illegal, when service providers direct him to the appropriate RIR there is a chance that the RIR will give a hard time to Johnny to get his address space due the obscurity of his operations that may be illegal in other countries within the region. Then Johnny will go to King of XX who will call his nephew at ITU to get the address space for poor Johnny. Not good. -J From awaite at tuenti.com Mon Mar 1 16:55:43 2010 From: awaite at tuenti.com (Adam Waite) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:55:43 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B8BE37F.8010705@tuenti.com> > Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run > network... > > Not since 1992......what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc. ARPANET only lives on in reverse dns..... From skeeve at me.com Mon Mar 1 16:46:07 2010 From: skeeve at me.com (Skeeve Stevens) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 23:46:07 +0800 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: References: <20100226170924.99ADB1CC0E@ptavv.es.net> <1267208530.26166.15.camel@ub-g-d2> <4B8843F4.9070108@foobar.org> <18a5e7cb1002261459p2ef6ac14leb86ab384337c148@mail.gmail.com> <4B8B9FD0.4010302@nosignal.org> <4B8BCA2D.3000505@nosignal.org> Message-ID: <044331CC-C797-4E21-AD6F-E3534AD0AB62@me.com> On 01/03/2010, at 10:24 PM, Arjan van der Oest wrote: > Andy scribbled: > >>>>> Competition is not a bad thing. >>>> Competition would be if I could approach the NCC or Pepsi Cola for > my >>>> integers for use on the internet. It is not competition if the >>>> government makes me ask them for some integers. >>> Assuming that ITU would become a nationwide alternative RIR, you > still >>> have the choice to approach NCC, wouldn't you? >> >> Why would this automatically be the case ? If governments were > required >> to distribute addresses via the national regulator, then the freedom of >> choice would NOT be the case. > > True. Like I said in my initial reply to members-discuss (and while > playing a devil's advocate role), I'm not entirely sure what it is that > ITU is striving for : replacing IANA or just becoming a nationwide RIR. > In the latter case this would not automatically mean (also assuming that > local governments will not further interfere in this process) that ITU > would be your one and only one-stop-shop for integers. > > But anyhow, don't get me wrong. I agree with all that has been said on > why and how ITU is trying to get a grip on packet switched communication > networks. My only point it that it might not be a bad idea to ponder on > the subject of allowing competition between RIR's in the same > geographical aerea and hence allow ITU to achieve the status of > nationwide RIR. > > If Telco's want to request their IP's from ITU instead of RIPE, they > have my utterly blessings... > > *zipping my Dr. Pepper* > > -- > Met vriendelijke groet / Kind Regards, > Worldmax Operations B.V. > > Arjan van der Oest Are you really serious about that? The issues seem to me much bigger than competition though. I agree that competition is 'not a bad thing' and that conceptually, the ITU being its own global RIR doesn't really have much of a downside.... conceptually that is. The practicality is that they won't act like an RIR in the way the other RIR's conduct themselves. The RIR system is a bottom up policy driven system in a model that all RIR's are co-operative and work together to achieve the same goals. The ITU - being an RIR wouldn't satisfy what it seems to setting out trying to do. Making them an RIR under the current system seems pointless as they aren't giving off much of a 'team player' vibe... more a fanatical religious vibe.. They will just define their own policies - which in the end may have an actual realised negative impact on the routing system - the details of which are for a different discussion. Given that the ITU, like the RIR, are a member driven system.... that to me suggests that there are specific members who are pushing for this... I've heard 'Syria' being tossed around as an agitator in this... but that there are other supporters who are not happy with the US Government dominance/control of the process. So the question is... what do these members who are pushing the ITU to go down this path.... what do they want? Could it be as simple as looking at making these guys a Middle Eastern RIR? Would that satisfy most of the agitators? I've heard some commentary that it just might. RIPE might not like losing a region... but the ideologies of the middle east is in many ways very different to that of most European countries. Would the Middle East as an RIR in its own right behave as a respectable member of the RIR community? maybe... has anyone asked? This sort of compromise may be a better way of handling the situation. The big issue I think is that the RIR's saying 'our way is best' (whether right or wrong) is no different to the ITU thinking the same from their perspective. In a normal situation we'd look at the merits of both proposals and decide whose best. But the RIR system has been running for a long time... and 'not badly' for the most part.... so why do we really need to change anything? Really.. if there were MASSIVE problems with the RIR system, the members would have kicked some ass a long time ago. One thing is... I guess since the US 'grew' the internet, and with some massive corporations having more space than some countries... the concerns of the ITU smaller members 'will be get screwed again may be justified... or if at least - reasonable.... something to at least take into count. Perhaps if a particular country is wanting more control over resources, setting up an NIR (as under the APNIC NIR style), is the path I would suggest they go... into a pre-defined, functioning, fair system. The countries are likely to have just as much, if not more involvement how things work, and get any resources they can justify. If any Joe can walk off the street and make a policy proposal... then why can't a disenfranchised country - with much more resources - get involved? ...Skeeve -------------------------------------------------------------------- Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists skeeve at eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve -- NOC, NOC, who's there? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Robert.Smales at cw.com Mon Mar 1 17:50:58 2010 From: Robert.Smales at cw.com (Smales, Robert) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 16:50:58 -0000 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <602ACF092EFFB044931BD8746C19AD2F0275E681@gbcwswiem006.ad.plc.cwintra.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin at ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-admin at ripe.net]On Behalf Of Arjan van der Oest > Sent: 01 March 2010 16:21 > > Again, my only point is: allocating space to ITU may settle > whatever worries they have. I'm just trying to point out that > competition (and change) are not a bad thing and I'm > reluctant to start seeking conspiracies about world > domination via ipv6. Let's see what it is ITU is *really* > trying to get done, let's chat about it and then let's see > what is wise. I see the RIRs as regulatory organisations. I tell my users that they have to justify their requests for IP space with properly completed RIPE-488s (OK, I will accept RIPE-381 or RIPE-315), even though most requests are within my assignment window, because 'it is the rules'. If you have competition between regulators, people will choose whichever one is most likely to give them what they want (kind of like the way anyone bringing a defamation action will choose to bring it in England if they can, rather than the US because English courts are much less sympathetic to free-speech than US courts). Thus, if APNIC is stricter than the ITU, people will apply for address space from the ITU rather than APNIC, if APNIC is less strict than the ITU, no one will apply for space from the ITU RIR. Competition between regulatory bodies is a bad thing. Robert Robert Smales Technical Engineer Cable&Wireless Worldwide www.cw.com This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cwworldwide.com/managed-exchange The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Cable and Wireless plc Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ From drc at virtualized.org Mon Mar 1 17:59:13 2010 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 08:59:13 -0800 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 1, 2010, at 7:42 AM, Arjan van der Oest wrote: >> keep in mind, most telcos and ISPs (the founders and members of the >> current IANA -> RIRS -> LIRs model resulting in a global internet which is >> hard to censor) do not agree on this ITU proposal... > > I wonder who those ITU members are then? Are those all currently > non-internet-offering telco's? Government departments/ministries? Even in the case of sector members, the folks who attend ITU generally are not the folks who attend RIR/NANOG meetings. > Not comparing this to the former-DDR or Chinese situation (please refer > to my tin-foil remark above) a per-country specific prefix is not > necessarily a bad thing and may even have an upside. There are, of course, plusses and minuses to country based allocations. On the plus side, it makes geo-location easier. On the minus side, it makes geo-location easier. It would also likely increase the number of routing prefixes announced by multi-nationals (not that this matters all that much in the grand scheme of things). It may also greatly simplify a return to the settlements-based regime that was the norm before around 1996 or so. However, I suspect the biggest change is that the moves where address policy is made away from the folks who are directly impacted by that policy (ISPs) to governments/PTTs. Please read some of the contributions at http://www.itu.int/net/ITU-T/ipv6/itudocs.aspx and determine for yourself whether you think they would make good policies. >> In order to accomplish that they want to create their own address >> registry, for now "secondary" to the ISP/telco run bottom-down RIR system >> (RIPE,ARIN,APNIC,AFRINIC,APNIC) but ofcourse we can't expect it to take >> long before repressive governments start to force "the internets" "in >> their country" to use only the ITU registry... > > Why? Because they are repressive? > Now let's stop folding tin hats. It has been noted in the past that you're not necessarily paranoid if they really are out to get you. Regards, -drc From Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu Mon Mar 1 18:25:31 2010 From: Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:25:31 -0500 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:42:15 +0100." References: Message-ID: <10497.1267464331@localhost> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:42:15 +0100, Arjan van der Oest said: > > (considering the fact that governments themselves are not capable of > >running anything but a gray-cheese-with-a-dial telephone network > > Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run > network... I would not be surprised if some of the bigger providers now have bigger networks in their test labs than the ARPANET/MILNET combo was - ISTR it was on the order of 4,000 total nodes in the 1984 era. I remember being surprised when my then-current employer joined both networks that the 3,000+ nodes on Bitnet and the size of the Arpa/Mil aggregate being comparable (and Bitnet may have been even bigger at some points). And let's face it - the Arpa/Milnet was a test network, not a production network. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ron at nosc.mil Mon Mar 1 18:49:50 2010 From: ron at nosc.mil (Ron Broersma) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:49:50 -0800 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd) In-Reply-To: <10497.1267464331@localhost> References: <10497.1267464331@localhost> Message-ID: On Mar 1, 2010, at 9:25 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: > On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:42:15 +0100, Arjan van der Oest said: > >>> (considering the fact that governments themselves are not capable of >>> running anything but a gray-cheese-with-a-dial telephone network >> >> Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run >> network... > > And let's face it - the Arpa/Milnet was a test network, not a production > network. It may have started as a research network, but was very much used for production activities by late 70's and early 80's. --Ron (Site coordinator for Arpanet IMP #3) From owen at delong.com Mon Mar 1 19:42:52 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 02:42:52 +0800 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd) In-Reply-To: <4B8BE37F.8010705@tuenti.com> References: <4B8BE37F.8010705@tuenti.com> Message-ID: <480CA8B6-D640-44D6-8870-2CC262C75F57@delong.com> On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:55 PM, Adam Waite wrote: > >> Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run >> network... >> >> > Not since 1992......what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc. > > ARPANET only lives on in reverse dns..... > > Um, actually, I would say that in all of those cases, including ARPANET when it existed, you are dealing with a government sponsored network rather than a government run network. Generally, in each of those cases, the government provides some or all of the money to keep the network going, but, has very little to do with dictating policy or operational aspects of the network. Owen From owen at delong.com Mon Mar 1 19:40:22 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 02:40:22 +0800 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <541B85C5-1FB0-4D20-B62A-15D4222E4E78@delong.com> On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:42 PM, Arjan van der Oest wrote: > CB3ROB scribbled: > >> let the riots commence 2.0.... > > Oh dear oh dear... > >> keep in mind, most telcos and ISPs (the founders and members of the >> current IANA -> RIRS -> LIRs model resulting in a global internet which > is >> hard to censor) do not agree on this ITU proposal... > > I wonder who those ITU members are then? Are those all currently > non-internet-offering telco's? > The voting members of the ITU are national governments. The telcos get to speak at some ITU sessions and get to attend most of them, but, they don't generally get to vote as I understand it. >> If we allow them to go forward, this WILL result in a "per country" >> easy-to-filter internet in a few years when ipv6 is the only serious >> protocol left. > > /me hands CB3ROB some tinfoil and mumbles : "believers, start your > FOLDING!" > >> we only need to point out how easy it was for the DDR to simply route >> all phonecalls to "the west" through a room where people monitored >> telephone conversations, and this "country specific prefix" is just > what >> the ITU seems to want for the internet. > > Not comparing this to the former-DDR or Chinese situation (please refer > to my tin-foil remark above) a per-country specific prefix is not > necessarily a bad thing and may even have an upside. > Care to explain what that could possibly be? (I simply don't see an upside to making it easy to censor the internet by national identity). >> In order to accomplish that they want to create their own address >> registry, for now "secondary" to the ISP/telco run bottom-down RIR > system >> (RIPE,ARIN,APNIC,AFRINIC,APNIC) but ofcourse we can't expect it to > take >> long before repressive governments start to force "the internets" "in >> their country" to use only the ITU registry... > > Why? > Because such is the nature of repressive governments? >> now -we- can always move our office to some other country and take our > tax >> money to some other resort, not a biggie, but don't come complaining > to me >> when germany at some point uses this to build their own chinese bigass > >> golden firewall with flames coming out of its ass to make it faster. > > Sven, I think several less-democratic nations have already proven that > if they require total control of the internet within the boundaries of > their country (sic) they can and will implement this anyhow. They don't > require ITU nor the UN for this. They will just demand Cisco and Google > to implement it and the corporate chiefs will just answer "How soon?"... > In fact, so far, said countries have had only minimal success with this approach. Look at the tunneling out of Iran during the recent events and the amount of "unauthorized" information which made it out to the world via the internet. In general, the current internet regards censorship as damage and routes around it. Giving repressive regimes the ability to know that all the addresses they want to allow to communicate are in a defined prefix would make effective censorship much easier and make working around that problem much harder. In spite of this fact, that is not the primary reason to oppose the ITU proposal. Competing Internet Registry structures where one structure is not bound by the stratagems of RFC-2050, or, for that matter, any form of policy other than what each national IR chooses to implement is a recipe for disaster in address policy. Imagine, for example, what happens when $NATION decides that spammers are a good source of revenue and starts selling them rotating address chunks for a fee. Pretty soon, the IPv6 address space could end up looking like the island of Nauru. (http://www.lawanddevelopment.org/docs/nauru.pdf) > >> (considering the fact that governments themselves are not capable of >> running anything but a gray-cheese-with-a-dial telephone network > > Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run > network... > No, ARPANET was a government sponsored network run by researchers. The fact that it is a cooperative anarchy rather than a highly structured centralized management structure pretty much proves that although the government funded it and pointed in a vague development direction, they had little to do with the implementation details and even less to do with the operational details. >> they need us, we don't need them > > If they install legislation that forbids anyone without a license to run > a telecommunications network of ANY kind, surely you need them, with or > without ITU and/or RIR's. > And yet so long as a given country has at least one licensed carrier doing some level of international IP based services it becomes almost impossible to inflict deeper policy on what use those IP based services are put to. OTOH, a wide-spread crackdown of national control over prefix distribution could make that much worse. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tony at lava.net Mon Mar 1 20:12:58 2010 From: tony at lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:12:58 -1000 (HST) Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd) In-Reply-To: <480CA8B6-D640-44D6-8870-2CC262C75F57@delong.com> References: <4B8BE37F.8010705@tuenti.com> <480CA8B6-D640-44D6-8870-2CC262C75F57@delong.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:55 PM, Adam Waite wrote: >> Not since 1992......what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc. > Um, actually, I would say that in all of those cases, including ARPANET when it existed, you are > dealing with a government sponsored network rather than a government run network. > > Generally, in each of those cases, the government provides some or all of the money to keep > the network going, but, has very little to do with dictating policy or operational aspects of the > network. I think DISA and DoD would argue about that claim with regard to NIPRNet and SIPRNet :) Antonio Querubin 808-545-5282 x3003 e-mail/xmpp: tony at lava.net From owen at delong.com Mon Mar 1 19:42:52 2010 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 02:42:52 +0800 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd) In-Reply-To: <4B8BE37F.8010705@tuenti.com> References: <4B8BE37F.8010705@tuenti.com> Message-ID: <480CA8B6-D640-44D6-8870-2CC262C75F57@delong.com> On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:55 PM, Adam Waite wrote: > >> Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run >> network... >> >> > Not since 1992......what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc. > > ARPANET only lives on in reverse dns..... > > Um, actually, I would say that in all of those cases, including ARPANET when it existed, you are dealing with a government sponsored network rather than a government run network. Generally, in each of those cases, the government provides some or all of the money to keep the network going, but, has very little to do with dictating policy or operational aspects of the network. Owen From tony at lava.net Mon Mar 1 20:12:58 2010 From: tony at lava.net (Antonio Querubin) Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 09:12:58 -1000 (HST) Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd) In-Reply-To: <480CA8B6-D640-44D6-8870-2CC262C75F57@delong.com> References: <4B8BE37F.8010705@tuenti.com> <480CA8B6-D640-44D6-8870-2CC262C75F57@delong.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Mar 1, 2010, at 11:55 PM, Adam Waite wrote: >> Not since 1992......what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc. > Um, actually, I would say that in all of those cases, including ARPANET when it existed, you are > dealing with a government sponsored network rather than a government run network. > > Generally, in each of those cases, the government provides some or all of the money to keep > the network going, but, has very little to do with dictating policy or operational aspects of the > network. I think DISA and DoD would argue about that claim with regard to NIPRNet and SIPRNet :) Antonio Querubin 808-545-5282 x3003 e-mail/xmpp: tony at lava.net From adi.vaizovic at telinea.com Mon Mar 1 22:09:17 2010 From: adi.vaizovic at telinea.com (adi.vaizovic at telinea.com) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:09:17 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100301220917.i9swqy0bkg8w804k@www.telinea.com> Do not agree with ITU proposal. Kindest regards, Adi Vaizovic, Telinea Quoting Arjan van der Oest : > CB3ROB scribbled: > >> let the riots commence 2.0.... > > Oh dear oh dear... > >> keep in mind, most telcos and ISPs (the founders and members of the >> current IANA -> RIRS -> LIRs model resulting in a global internet which > is >> hard to censor) do not agree on this ITU proposal... > > I wonder who those ITU members are then? Are those all currently > non-internet-offering telco's? > >> If we allow them to go forward, this WILL result in a "per country" >> easy-to-filter internet in a few years when ipv6 is the only serious >> protocol left. > > /me hands CB3ROB some tinfoil and mumbles : "believers, start your > FOLDING!" > >> we only need to point out how easy it was for the DDR to simply route >> all phonecalls to "the west" through a room where people monitored >> telephone conversations, and this "country specific prefix" is just > what >> the ITU seems to want for the internet. > > Not comparing this to the former-DDR or Chinese situation (please refer > to my tin-foil remark above) a per-country specific prefix is not > necessarily a bad thing and may even have an upside. > >> In order to accomplish that they want to create their own address >> registry, for now "secondary" to the ISP/telco run bottom-down RIR > system >> (RIPE,ARIN,APNIC,AFRINIC,APNIC) but ofcourse we can't expect it to > take >> long before repressive governments start to force "the internets" "in >> their country" to use only the ITU registry... > > Why? > >> now -we- can always move our office to some other country and take our > tax >> money to some other resort, not a biggie, but don't come complaining > to me >> when germany at some point uses this to build their own chinese bigass > >> golden firewall with flames coming out of its ass to make it faster. > > Sven, I think several less-democratic nations have already proven that > if they require total control of the internet within the boundaries of > their country (sic) they can and will implement this anyhow. They don't > require ITU nor the UN for this. They will just demand Cisco and Google > to implement it and the corporate chiefs will just answer "How soon?"... > >> methods available to isps/telcos to stop this: >> >> - point out to governments that -we- own the internet > > You don't 'own' the internet, at most you own the infra within your own > AS. At least you and others don't own my part of the internet :) > >> their economy runs >> over it as a "courtesy" and that we can send them back to the stoneage > at >> any time we like by simply dropping 'their' traffic. > > Now that is a very smart thing to say. Another reason for the UN to gain > total control... Go on, hand them more sticks. > >> (considering the fact that governments themselves are not capable of >> running anything but a gray-cheese-with-a-dial telephone network > > Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run > network... > >> they need us, we don't need them > > If they install legislation that forbids anyone without a license to run > a telecommunications network of ANY kind, surely you need them, with or > without ITU and/or RIR's. > >> Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what has your country > ever >> done for you. > > Oh please Sven, let's not go there :) > >> we have the biggest stick in this matter. > > *bzzzz* Sorry, wrong again. The government ultimately draws the longest > straw. Always... If they want to, they will. > > Now let's stop folding tin hats. > > > -- > Met vriendelijke groet / Kind Regards, > Worldmax Operations B.V. > > Arjan van der Oest > Network Design Engineer > > T.: +31 (0) 88 001 7912 > F.: +31 (0) 88 001 7902 > M.: +31 (0) 6 10 62 58 46 > > E.: arjan.van.der.oest at worldmax.nl > W.:www.worldmax.nl > W.:www.aerea.nl > GPG: https://keyserver.pgp.com/ (Key ID: 07286F78, fingerprint: 2E9F > 3AE2 0A8B 7579 75A9 169F 5D9E 5312 0728 6F78) > > Internet communications are not secure; therefore, the integrity of > this e-mail cannot be guaranteed following transmission on the > Internet. This e-mail may contain confidential information. If you > have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and > erase this e-mail. Use of this e-mail by any person other than the > addressee is strictly forbidden. This e-mail is believed to be free > of any virus that might adversely affect the addressee's computer > system; however, no responsibility is accepted for any loss or > damage arising in any way from its use. All the preceding > disclaimers also apply to any possible attachments to this e-mail. > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss > list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: > http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > From oberman at es.net Mon Mar 1 22:30:24 2010 From: oberman at es.net (Kevin Oberman) Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 13:30:24 -0800 Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:55:43 +0100." <4B8BE37F.8010705@tuenti.com> Message-ID: <20100301213024.597291CC13@ptavv.es.net> > Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:55:43 +0100 > From: Adam Waite > > > > Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run > > network... > > > > > Not since 1992......what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and > SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc. While ESnet is funded by the Department of Energy and they certainly define the strategic policy of ESnet, they don't make design decisions nor get involved with the technical end of the network. ESnet is run by the University of California's Berkeley Lab under contract to the DOE. This may sound like hair splitting, but it is really very different from Fednets like NIPR and SIPR (and many, many others) including the Department of Energy's own DOEnet. Note that DOEnet is used for DOE business operations while ESnet is use support DOE funded research. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: oberman at es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Tue Mar 2 10:49:31 2010 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:49:31 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [gih@apnic.net: Re: [apnic-talk] [AusNOG] [pacnog] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group] Message-ID: <20100302094931.GB333@reiftel.karrenberg.net> This is a nicely relevant post from the sister list apnic-talk. Enjoy Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Geoff Huston Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] [AusNOG] [pacnog] RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 08:42:58 +1100 Size: 7594 URL: From sven at cb3rob.net Tue Mar 2 11:56:22 2010 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 10:56:22 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE invoice 2010-I In-Reply-To: <4B8C9AA4.2080306@rdtc.ru> References: <4B8C9AA4.2080306@rdtc.ru> Message-ID: > Have you marked your AS number such way? Yes, I did, RIPE in the meanwhile has sent us another couple of emails persisting in their claim that AS numbers, also the ones used by the LIRs themselves are billed seperately with the new independant resources system... So if everyone would like, check their invoice they got a few days ago, they'd find they now have to pay extra for their -own- as... way to go ripe. On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >> we noticed ripe bills as numbers in use by the LIR -themselves- >> as "Independant resources" rather than the points-based billing model.. >> >> surely this was not what the 2007-1 policy was intended to do? >> >> i'd say AS numbers in use by the lir themselves fall under the normal >> points model still, just like PA ipv4 and ipv6 resources... >> >> exactly what is so "independant" about our OWN AS number remains unclear >> to me. >> >> scrape a few extra bucks for ripe. >> >> RIPE billing department in the mean while claims that this is not an >> error... > > Last year I've got such remark from RIPE: > >> If this AS number is in use by your LIR, you can select the option "My >> Infrastructure" in the interface provided in the LIR Portal: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/lirportal/index.html >> LIR Portal -> Independent Resources >> >> I hope this clarifies. >> Kind regards, >> >> Andrea Cima >> RIPE NCC > > Have you marked your AS number such way? > > Eugene Grosbein > From sven at cb3rob.net Tue Mar 2 12:07:24 2010 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 11:07:24 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE invoice 2010-I In-Reply-To: References: <4B8C9AA4.2080306@rdtc.ru> Message-ID: >From RIPE's reply: which indeed, doesn't state that -YOUR OWN- AS won't be billed extra, but rather "The only difference between 'my infrastructure' and 'my end-user' is that you don't need to upload a contract." So the end result of the 2007-1 policy is that we can now all pay extra cash to ripe for something we already had... Funny that, because I always was under the impression that entries marked as "own infrastructure" would remain in the normal points-based billing model... seeing the replies so far, i take it most other LIRs were too :P ripes reply: It was communicated through our website: http://ripe.net/rs/pi-existing-assignments.html And at the moment that you could make a selection for the resources through the LIR portal there was a link 'What are the consequences of my choice? (click to expand...)' If you clicked on it you would get the following pop-up: * My Infrastructure: If you have selected this option you will not have to upload a contract and registration papers, as these resources are assigned to your LIR's own infrastructure and are covered by the Standard Service Agreement you have signed with the RIPE NCC. * The RIPE NCC will audit all resources listed as 'My Infrastructure'. These resources are included in the charging scheme 2010. My End User: If you have selected this option the independent resource will stay registered with your LIR. You will have to upload an Independent Assignment Request and Maintenance Agreement between your LIR and the End User and the End User's company registration papers, before 1st March 2010. These resources are included in the charging scheme 2010. * Not my End User: If you select this option the independent resource will be removed from your LIR's records. These resources are marked and excluded from the charging scheme 2010. Eventually these resources will also be removed from your LIR Portal. The only difference between 'my infrastructure' and 'my end-user' is that you don't need to upload a contract. On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >> Have you marked your AS number such way? > > Yes, I did, RIPE in the meanwhile has sent us another couple of emails > persisting in their claim that AS numbers, also the ones used by the LIRs > themselves are billed seperately with the new independant resources system... > > So if everyone would like, check their invoice they got a few days ago, > they'd find they now have to pay extra for their -own- as... > > way to go ripe. > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > >> Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >>> we noticed ripe bills as numbers in use by the LIR -themselves- >>> as "Independant resources" rather than the points-based billing model.. >>> >>> surely this was not what the 2007-1 policy was intended to do? >>> >>> i'd say AS numbers in use by the lir themselves fall under the normal >>> points model still, just like PA ipv4 and ipv6 resources... >>> >>> exactly what is so "independant" about our OWN AS number remains unclear >>> to me. >>> >>> scrape a few extra bucks for ripe. >>> >>> RIPE billing department in the mean while claims that this is not an >>> error... >> >> Last year I've got such remark from RIPE: >> >>> If this AS number is in use by your LIR, you can select the option "My >>> Infrastructure" in the interface provided in the LIR Portal: >>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/lirportal/index.html >>> LIR Portal -> Independent Resources >>> >>> I hope this clarifies. >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Andrea Cima >>> RIPE NCC >> >> Have you marked your AS number such way? >> >> Eugene Grosbein >> > > ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss > list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. From martin at airwire.ie Tue Mar 2 14:46:24 2010 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:46:24 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE invoice 2010-I In-Reply-To: <4B8D1600.80808@airwire.ie> References: <4B8C9AA4.2080306@rdtc.ru> <4B8D1600.80808@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <4B8D16B0.3010606@airwire.ie> Hi Sven, in regards to the AS, I can see, where that is a bit of a bummer alright. /Martin Martin List-Petersen wrote: > No. > > The understanding from the GM was quite clear, that all PI ressources > would be billed, be it your own infrastructure or not. There is no > difference to PI, be it your infrastructure or a customers. There's only > a difference between PA and PI. Only PA is in the point based billing > system. > > PI ressources from before weren't billed at all, be they your > infrastructure or not. > > That was pretty clear to anybody, I think. > > Kind regards, > Martin List-Petersen > Airwire > > > Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >> From RIPE's reply: >> >> which indeed, doesn't state that -YOUR OWN- AS won't be billed extra, >> but rather "The only difference between 'my infrastructure' and 'my >> end-user' is >> that you don't need to upload a contract." >> >> So the end result of the 2007-1 policy is that we can now all pay extra >> cash to ripe for something we already had... >> >> Funny that, because I always was under the impression that entries >> marked as "own infrastructure" would remain in the normal points-based >> billing model... seeing the replies so far, i take it most other LIRs >> were too :P >> >> ripes reply: >> >> It was communicated through our website: >> >> http://ripe.net/rs/pi-existing-assignments.html >> >> And at the moment that you could make a selection for the resources >> through the LIR portal there was a link 'What are the consequences of >> my choice? (click to expand...)' >> >> If you clicked on it you would get the following pop-up: >> >> * My Infrastructure: If you have selected this option you will not >> have to upload a contract and registration papers, as these >> resources are assigned to your LIR's own infrastructure and are >> covered by the Standard Service Agreement you have signed with the >> RIPE NCC. >> >> * The RIPE NCC will audit all resources listed as 'My >> Infrastructure'. These resources are included in the charging scheme >> 2010. My End User: If you have selected this option the independent >> resource will stay registered with your LIR. You will have to upload >> an Independent Assignment Request and Maintenance Agreement between >> your LIR and the End User and the End User's company registration >> papers, before 1st March 2010. These resources are included in the >> charging scheme 2010. >> >> * Not my End User: If you select this option the independent resource >> will be removed from your LIR's records. These resources are marked >> and excluded from the charging scheme 2010. Eventually these >> resources will also be removed from your LIR Portal. >> >> The only difference between 'my infrastructure' and 'my end-user' is >> that you don't need to upload a contract. >> >> >> >> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >> >>>> Have you marked your AS number such way? >>> Yes, I did, RIPE in the meanwhile has sent us another couple of emails >>> persisting in their claim that AS numbers, also the ones used by the >>> LIRs themselves are billed seperately with the new independant >>> resources system... >>> >>> So if everyone would like, check their invoice they got a few days ago, >>> they'd find they now have to pay extra for their -own- as... >>> >>> way to go ripe. >>> >>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Eugene Grosbein wrote: >>> >>>> Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >>>>> we noticed ripe bills as numbers in use by the LIR -themselves- >>>>> as "Independant resources" rather than the points-based billing model.. >>>>> >>>>> surely this was not what the 2007-1 policy was intended to do? >>>>> >>>>> i'd say AS numbers in use by the lir themselves fall under the normal >>>>> points model still, just like PA ipv4 and ipv6 resources... >>>>> >>>>> exactly what is so "independant" about our OWN AS number remains >>>>> unclear >>>>> to me. >>>>> >>>>> scrape a few extra bucks for ripe. >>>>> >>>>> RIPE billing department in the mean while claims that this is not an >>>>> error... >>>> Last year I've got such remark from RIPE: >>>> >>>>> If this AS number is in use by your LIR, you can select the option "My >>>>> Infrastructure" in the interface provided in the LIR Portal: >>>>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/lirportal/index.html >>>>> LIR Portal -> Independent Resources >>>>> >>>>> I hope this clarifies. >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>>> Andrea Cima >>>>> RIPE NCC >>>> Have you marked your AS number such way? >>>> >>>> Eugene Grosbein >>>> >>> ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members >>> Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: >>> http://lirportal.ripe.net/ >>> First click on General and then click on Edit. >>> At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. >> ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members >> Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: >> http://lirportal.ripe.net/ >> First click on General and then click on Edit. >> At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > From martin at airwire.ie Tue Mar 2 14:43:28 2010 From: martin at airwire.ie (Martin List-Petersen) Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:43:28 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE invoice 2010-I In-Reply-To: References: <4B8C9AA4.2080306@rdtc.ru> Message-ID: <4B8D1600.80808@airwire.ie> No. The understanding from the GM was quite clear, that all PI ressources would be billed, be it your own infrastructure or not. There is no difference to PI, be it your infrastructure or a customers. There's only a difference between PA and PI. Only PA is in the point based billing system. PI ressources from before weren't billed at all, be they your infrastructure or not. That was pretty clear to anybody, I think. Kind regards, Martin List-Petersen Airwire Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > From RIPE's reply: > > which indeed, doesn't state that -YOUR OWN- AS won't be billed extra, > but rather "The only difference between 'my infrastructure' and 'my > end-user' is > that you don't need to upload a contract." > > So the end result of the 2007-1 policy is that we can now all pay extra > cash to ripe for something we already had... > > Funny that, because I always was under the impression that entries > marked as "own infrastructure" would remain in the normal points-based > billing model... seeing the replies so far, i take it most other LIRs > were too :P > > ripes reply: > > It was communicated through our website: > > http://ripe.net/rs/pi-existing-assignments.html > > And at the moment that you could make a selection for the resources > through the LIR portal there was a link 'What are the consequences of > my choice? (click to expand...)' > > If you clicked on it you would get the following pop-up: > > * My Infrastructure: If you have selected this option you will not > have to upload a contract and registration papers, as these > resources are assigned to your LIR's own infrastructure and are > covered by the Standard Service Agreement you have signed with the > RIPE NCC. > > * The RIPE NCC will audit all resources listed as 'My > Infrastructure'. These resources are included in the charging scheme > 2010. My End User: If you have selected this option the independent > resource will stay registered with your LIR. You will have to upload > an Independent Assignment Request and Maintenance Agreement between > your LIR and the End User and the End User's company registration > papers, before 1st March 2010. These resources are included in the > charging scheme 2010. > > * Not my End User: If you select this option the independent resource > will be removed from your LIR's records. These resources are marked > and excluded from the charging scheme 2010. Eventually these > resources will also be removed from your LIR Portal. > > The only difference between 'my infrastructure' and 'my end-user' is > that you don't need to upload a contract. > > > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >>> Have you marked your AS number such way? >> >> Yes, I did, RIPE in the meanwhile has sent us another couple of emails >> persisting in their claim that AS numbers, also the ones used by the >> LIRs themselves are billed seperately with the new independant >> resources system... >> >> So if everyone would like, check their invoice they got a few days ago, >> they'd find they now have to pay extra for their -own- as... >> >> way to go ripe. >> >> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Eugene Grosbein wrote: >> >>> Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >>>> we noticed ripe bills as numbers in use by the LIR -themselves- >>>> as "Independant resources" rather than the points-based billing model.. >>>> >>>> surely this was not what the 2007-1 policy was intended to do? >>>> >>>> i'd say AS numbers in use by the lir themselves fall under the normal >>>> points model still, just like PA ipv4 and ipv6 resources... >>>> >>>> exactly what is so "independant" about our OWN AS number remains >>>> unclear >>>> to me. >>>> >>>> scrape a few extra bucks for ripe. >>>> >>>> RIPE billing department in the mean while claims that this is not an >>>> error... >>> >>> Last year I've got such remark from RIPE: >>> >>>> If this AS number is in use by your LIR, you can select the option "My >>>> Infrastructure" in the interface provided in the LIR Portal: >>>> https://lirportal.ripe.net/lirportal/index.html >>>> LIR Portal -> Independent Resources >>>> >>>> I hope this clarifies. >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Andrea Cima >>>> RIPE NCC >>> >>> Have you marked your AS number such way? >>> >>> Eugene Grosbein >>> >> >> ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members >> Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: >> http://lirportal.ripe.net/ >> First click on General and then click on Edit. >> At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members > Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: > http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. From ncc at ripe.net Tue Mar 2 17:33:27 2010 From: ncc at ripe.net (RIPE NCC) Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:33:27 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] ITU and IPv6 Consultation Message-ID: <4B8D3DD7.7020602@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, On behalf of APNIC, we would like to draw your attention to an important community consultation taking place on 3 March 2010. ______________________________________________________________________ APNIC Community Consultation Wednesday, 3 March 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ The ITU is considering the possibility of becoming an International Internet Registry, as well as the possible implementation of a Country Internet Registry model to use as an alternative to the Regional Internet Registry system. APNIC's Community Consultation session on Wednesday, 3 March 2010 is your opportunity to discuss the issues and ramifications of the ITU's possible entry into the IP address management arena. Participate onsite ------------------ Where: Conference Hall 2, Kuala Lumpur Convention Center When: 14:00 - 15:30 Participate online ------------------ When: Kuala Lumpur time: 14:00 - 15:30 UTC: 6:00 - 7:30 How: Audio and video streaming Interactive chat Live transcripts For more information about how to attend this session remotely, see: http://meetings.apnic.net/29/remote For more information about this session, refer to: http://meetings.apnic.net/29/program/consultation You are also invited to submit written contributions to this session to: ipv6 at apnic.net _______________________________________________________________________ APNIC Secretariat Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61-7-3858-3100 PO Box 2131 Milton, QLD 4064 Australia Fax: +61-7-3858-3199 Level 1, 33 Park Road, Milton, QLD http://www.apnic.net _______________________________________________________________________ From sven at cb3rob.net Tue Mar 2 21:59:45 2010 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 20:59:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20100301213024.597291CC13@ptavv.es.net> References: <20100301213024.597291CC13@ptavv.es.net> Message-ID: just to undermine the ITU's (only) point, why don't we simply have IANA delegate lets say 25% of the available ipv6 space to AFRINIC and APNIC now, like, -now- already... if they're so concerned about the "developing countries" surely, most of them would be in those regions :P and that should cover their need for centuries to come... On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:55:43 +0100 >> From: Adam Waite >> >> >>> Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run >>> network... >>> >>> >> Not since 1992......what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and >> SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc. > > While ESnet is funded by the Department of Energy and they certainly > define the strategic policy of ESnet, they don't make design decisions > nor get involved with the technical end of the network. > > ESnet is run by the University of California's Berkeley Lab under > contract to the DOE. This may sound like hair splitting, but it is > really very different from Fednets like NIPR and SIPR (and many, many > others) including the Department of Energy's own DOEnet. Note that > DOEnet is used for DOE business operations while ESnet is use support > DOE funded research. > -- > R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer > Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) > Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) > E-mail: oberman at es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 > Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > > From sven at cb3rob.net Tue Mar 2 21:59:45 2010 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 20:59:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Re: RIPE NCC Position On The ITU IPv6 Group (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20100301213024.597291CC13@ptavv.es.net> References: <20100301213024.597291CC13@ptavv.es.net> Message-ID: just to undermine the ITU's (only) point, why don't we simply have IANA delegate lets say 25% of the available ipv6 space to AFRINIC and APNIC now, like, -now- already... if they're so concerned about the "developing countries" surely, most of them would be in those regions :P and that should cover their need for centuries to come... On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:55:43 +0100 >> From: Adam Waite >> >> >>> Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run >>> network... >>> >>> >> Not since 1992......what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and >> SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc. > > While ESnet is funded by the Department of Energy and they certainly > define the strategic policy of ESnet, they don't make design decisions > nor get involved with the technical end of the network. > > ESnet is run by the University of California's Berkeley Lab under > contract to the DOE. This may sound like hair splitting, but it is > really very different from Fednets like NIPR and SIPR (and many, many > others) including the Department of Energy's own DOEnet. Note that > DOEnet is used for DOE business operations while ESnet is use support > DOE funded research. > -- > R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer > Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) > Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) > E-mail: oberman at es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 > Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751 > > ---- > If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ > First click on General and then click on Edit. > At the bottom of the Page you can add or remove addresses. > > > From paul at racksense.com Wed Mar 3 02:03:25 2010 From: paul at racksense.com (Paul Civati) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 01:03:25 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE invoice 2010-I In-Reply-To: <4B8D1600.80808@airwire.ie> References: <4B8C9AA4.2080306@rdtc.ru> <4B8D1600.80808@airwire.ie> Message-ID: <70189.1267578205@xciv.org> Martin List-Petersen wrote: > No. > > The understanding from the GM was quite clear, that all PI ressources > would be billed, be it your own infrastructure or not. There is no > difference to PI, be it your infrastructure or a customers. There's only > a difference between PA and PI. Only PA is in the point based billing > system. > > PI ressources from before weren't billed at all, be they your > infrastructure or not. > > That was pretty clear to anybody, I think. Maybe that was pretty clear to anybody who went to the GM, but how many LIRs manage to make it to the GM? IMO the whole implementation of 2007-1 has been unclear for anybody not party to the GM. I thought the point of 2007-1 was to make end users account for their usage financially. LIR infrastructure is not end user. For a small LIR 2007-1 has ultimately cost us money and caused us headache with our end users, which is something that seems to have not been thought about in terms of how people would have to implement it. I see the point of 2007-1, if address space is running out then people are not going to pay for space that they don't actively have a need for. IMO however, it has been poorly implemented. Regards, -Paul- -- Paul Civati 0870 321 2855 Rack Sense Ltd - Managed Service Provider - www.racksense.com From rhe at nosc.ja.net Wed Mar 3 13:41:43 2010 From: rhe at nosc.ja.net (Rob Evans) Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:41:43 +0000 Subject: [members-discuss] RIPE invoice 2010-I In-Reply-To: <70189.1267578205@xciv.org> References: <4B8C9AA4.2080306@rdtc.ru> <4B8D1600.80808@airwire.ie> <70189.1267578205@xciv.org> Message-ID: <4B8E5907.1040903@nosc.ja.net> > I thought the point of 2007-1 was to make end users account > for their usage financially. I thought it was simply to ensure an ongoing contractual relationship, but then again, I'm sure I lost track several times during the discussion. :) Cheers, Rob -- Rob Evans JANET(UK) Development Team Twitter: https://twitter.com/JANETDev/team Work tweets: https://twitter.com/internetplumber JANET(UK) is a trading name of The JNT Association, a company limited by guarantee which is registered in England under No. 2881024 and whose Registered Office is at Lumen House, Library Avenue, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire. OX11 0SG From sven at cb3rob.net Sun Mar 7 17:50:47 2010 From: sven at cb3rob.net (Sven Olaf Kamphuis) Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2010 16:50:47 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [members-discuss] Sponsoring request Piratenpartij Nederland Message-ID: Pardon the interruption regarding this somewhat unusual request, but please forward this to your sponsoring/donations/legal/lobbying department: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Internet Industry representatives: The Pirate Party Netherlands ( Piratenpartij Nederland), which is concerned with online and offline civil rights and a revision (reduction) of copyright law, is planning to take part in the upcoming parliamentary elections in the Netherlands. Although participation in the elections is open to all parties, it is not without costs. Therefore, the Pirate Party needs external funding from both individuals and organisations which share our vision. The costs which we incur are the following: - EUR 11250.- deposit to the election council (www.kiesraad.nl), to be recieved back if the party attains 75% of one parliamentary seat. - EUR 450.- registration fee for political parties at election council (www.kiesraad.nl) - EUR 500.- notary costs - EUR 150.- chamber of commerce registration (formal association with legal personality) - Online and offline advertising and campaign costs That is why we ask organisations and individuals for contributions to Pirate Party Netherlands. More information can be found at: http://staging.piratenpartij.nl/ Kind regards, representing Pirate Party Netherlands Rogier Huurman, Secretary Pirate Party Netherlands Sven Olaf Kamphuis, Member Piratenpartei Deutschland Member Piratenpartij Nederland Contact: Samir Allioui, Co-President at Pirate Parties International Chairman Piratenpartij Nederland +31627588738 samir.alioui at piratenpartij.nl ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Geachte vertegenwoordigers van de Internet Industrie, De Piratenpartij Nederland, die zich inzet voor online en offline burgerrechten alsmede een herziening (beperking) van de auteursrechten, is voornemens deel te nemen aan de komende verkiezingen voor de Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal. Deelname aan de verkiezingen is dan wel vrij voor iedereen, maar het is zeker niet gratis. De Piratenpartij heeft daarom behoefte aan externe financiC+le injecties van zowel particulieren als organisaties die zich door onze standpunten aangesproken voelen. De kosten die wij moeten maken zijn als volgt: - 11250 euro borgstelling voor de kiesraad (www.kiesraad.nl), terug te ontvangen van de kiesraad door de partij bij het halen van 0.75e deel van 1 zetel - 450 euro eenmalige inschrijvingskosten kieslijst (www.kiesraad.nl) - 500 euro notariskosten - 150 euro kamer van koophandel (formele vereniging met rechtspersoon) - Online en offline advertentie- en campagnekosten Wij vragen daarom organisaties en particulieren om bijdragen ten bate van de Piratenpartij Nederland. Verdere informatie is beschikbaar op http://staging.piratenpartij.nl/ Met vriendelijke groet, namens Piratenpartij Nederland, Rogier Huurman, Secretary Pirate Party Netherlands Sven Olaf Kamphuis, Lid Piratenpartei Deutschland Lid Piratenpartei Nederland Contact: Samir Allioui, Co-President at Pirate Parties International Voorzitter Piratenpartij Nederland +31627588738 samir.alioui at piratenpartij.nl ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PiratenPartij Nederland Postbus 58006 NL-1040 HA Amsterdam The Netherlands From meeting at ripe.net Thu Mar 11 14:52:11 2010 From: meeting at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Meeting Coordinator) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:52:11 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE 60: Registration Now Open Message-ID: <4B98F58B.3020707@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, RIPE 60 will take place on 3-7 May 2010 in Prague, Czech Republic. You can now register online for RIPE 60 at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/registration Tickets -------- You can register for the full week (350 euro) or choose a day ticket for a particular day (125 euro). Discounted week tickets are available for students (175 euro). If you are a new LIR you may be entitled to free entry to the meeting. More information is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/introduction.html Meeting Venue/ Hotel: ------------- RIPE 60 will take place in the Prague Marriott Hotel. Discounted room rates have been negotiated for RIPE Meeting attendees. Instructions on how to book your hotel can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/venue.html More information is available, and will be continually updated, at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-60/ Regards, The RIPE Meeting Team RIPE NCC From noreply at ripe.net Thu Mar 25 17:49:04 2010 From: noreply at ripe.net (Axel Pawlik) Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:49:04 +0100 Subject: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC General Meeting May 2010 - Registration Open Message-ID: <4BAB9400.3000500@ripe.net> Dear RIPE NCC member, The RIPE NCC Executive Board is pleased to invite you to the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM). The GM will be held on Wednesday, 5 May 2010 from 16:00-19:00. The GM will be held adjacent to the RIPE 60 Meeting, which takes place from 3-7 May 2010 at the Prague Marriot Hotel in the Czech Republic. The GM will consist of two parts: * The RIPE NCC Services Working Group session will begin at 16:00 and will include the presentation of the report from the RIPE NCC. This part of the GM is open to everyone. * The second part of the GM follows immediately after the RIPE NCC Services Working Group session and is only open to RIPE NCC members who have registered for the GM. This part of the meeting is the forum in which RIPE NCC members can discuss the operations and activities of the RIPE NCC and exercise their voting rights. More information about the GM is available at: http://www.ripe.net/membership/gm/gm-may2010/ Registration ---------------- You must register for the GM separately from the RIPE 60 Meeting. As a member, you can attend both the RIPE NCC Services Working Group session and the members-only section of the GM without being registered for RIPE 60. See below for further information on the RIPE NCC Services Working Group session. You can register for the GM online at: http://www.ripe.net/membership/gm/gm-may2010/registration Please complete the online registration form by 21 April 2010. If more than one authorised person from your organisation is to attend the GM, each person will need to register separately. Voting rights will be assigned to the person who registers first. If your organisation is to be represented by a third party, not being an authorised employee or director, please fill out the proxy form and send it to us by 21 April 2010. Any proxy sent to us after this date will not be valid. The proxy form is available to download here: http://www.ripe.net/membership/gm/gm-may2010/proxy.html Draft Agenda ------------------ The draft agenda for the GM is available at: http://www.ripe.net/membership/gm/gm-may2010/agenda.html Report from the RIPE NCC ----------------------------------- The Report from the RIPE NCC presentation will be given during the RIPE NCC Services Working Group session during RIPE 60, which constitutes the first part of the GM. GM attendees who have not registered for the RIPE Meeting are welcome to participate in this working group session. This takes place on Wednesday, 5 May 2010 from 16:00-17:30, immediately before the members-only section of the GM. The report from the RIPE NCC presentation will not be repeated in the members-only section of the GM. Executive Board Elections ---------------------------------- Voting for the appointment of two RIPE NCC Executive Board members will take place at the GM. The vacant seats are for two three-year terms. In compliance with the RIPE NCC Articles of Association, the RIPE NCC is calling for nominations to the RIPE NCC Executive Board. The deadline for nominations is Wednesday, 14 April 2010. Details on the RIPE NCC Executive Board election process, including how to nominate candidates, are available at: http://www.ripe.net/membership/gm/gm-may2010/elections/index.html Voting and Resolutions ------------------------------- Candidate members are welcome to attend the GM but are not permitted to vote according to article 16.7 of the RIPE NCC Articles of Association. Full members who are not able to attend the GM but still want to vote can do so by means of proxy voting as per article 16. For the first time, electronic voting for the RIPE NCC Executive Board elections is possible for those participating remotely. Invitations to register for electronic voting will be sent to the registered contact persons for all members. If you wish to vote electronically in the Executive Board elections, please carefully follow the instructions in the invitation email you receive. Please also note that the GM can only pass resolutions that have been submitted and published according to article 15 of the RIPE NCC Articles of Association. The RIPE NCC Articles of Association can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/articles-association.html We send invitations for General Meetings by email only. However, if your organisation wishes to receive this and future invitations for General Meetings by regular post, please let us know by emailing us at . If you have any questions about the GM, please email us at . Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC Important dates 18 March 2010 Call for nominations for RIPE NCC Executive Board 25 March 2010 GM registration opens 25 March 2010 Draft agenda and proposed resolutions posted online 14 April 2010 Deadline for nominations to Executive Board* 21 April 2010 Submission deadline for proposed resolutions 21 April 2010 Online registration for GM closes 21 April 2010 Deadline for registration for electronic voting 21 April 2010 Proxy forms must be received by the RIPE NCC 5 May 2010 RIPE NCC General Meeting * If there are less than three nominations by 14 April, the RIPE NCC Executive Board will nominate sufficient candidates to ensure there is an election. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saskia at ripe.net Mon Mar 29 16:57:36 2010 From: saskia at ripe.net (Saskia van Gorp) Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:57:36 +0200 Subject: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] RIPE NCC offices closed on 2 and 5 April 2010 Message-ID: <4BB0BFE0.4050001@ripe.net> Dear Colleagues, Our offices will be closed on Friday 2 April (Good Friday) and Monday 5 April (Easter Monday). Normal office hours will resume on Tuesday 6 April 2010. Regards, Saskia van Gorp Front Office Manager RIPE NCC