[members-discuss] About transfer policies

Tue Mar 3 15:02:49 CET 2020

Well, *you* say that you meet the requirement that a valid person is signing the documents, but RIPE is not convinced. And it's RIPE that needs to be convinced before it becomes a fact to them in regards of their policy. That there is some unconnected fact of the matter is irrelevant.

If your logic worked I could just send in no documents at all and say "why is it my problem that RIPE doesn't know the content of the documents?"

-- 
Regards,
   Terrence Koeman, PhD/MTh/BPsy
     Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V.

Please quote relevant replies.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of
> Dmitry P
> Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 12:46 PM
> To: members-discuss at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] About transfer policies
> 
> What's contradictory is there is no policy stating that lacking knowledge
> on their part about some country's jurisdiction may affect transfers. The
> requirements for a transfer are an active company and a valid person who
> is signing the documents, which criteria is being meet completely by our
> company.
> 
> In this case they want to make us wait about 2 weeks for a reason that
> doubtfully affects the transfer at all, since the general criteria is
> being meet on our side. If they made some mistake of not knowing the
> jurisdiction in full, why they wouldn't leave that for themselves instead
> of involving us in the waiting time?
> 
> 
> For me nothing is logical here, especially, when a company that provided a
> service to you during 4 years suddenly change their mind about way they do
> business without prior notification, specially when nothing have changed
> on your part. At least it's not how business is supposed to work in my
> opinion.
> 
> 
> This line doesn't affect the way our company exists, at least it's not the
> reason to suspend a business with us. It probably means that the director
> is not backed by an organisation and it's a private person. We have seen a
> lot of extracts of currently active companies we work with that have a
> same line, so it's quite common, though I am not sure what it means
> exactly.
> 
> On 3/3/20 2:24 AM, Terrence Koeman wrote:
> 
> 
> 	It seems to me they did not notice it earlier, but now they have and
> are seeking clarification from the issuing authority.
> 
> 
> 	Seems completely logical to me. Just because they did not notice it
> before doesn't mean that they are now forced to continue exactly as
> before...
> 
> 
> 	"doesn't have" on an extract may concern authority to represent a
> business or something important like that. I don't see what policy is
> contradicted here? Can you suggest one?
> 
> 
> 	--
> 	Regards,
> 	   Terrence Koeman, PhD/MTh/BPsy
> 	     Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V.
> 
> 	Please quote relevant replies.
> 	Spelling errors courtesy of my 'smart'phone.
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 	From: Dmitry P <head at global-data-networks.com> <mailto:head at global-
> data-networks.com>
> 	Sent: Tuesday, 3 March 2020 03:13
> 	To: members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
> 	Subject: [members-discuss] About transfer policies
> 
> 
> 
> 		Hello,
> 
> 		we are in some weird situation with transfering out an IP
> range and RIPE
> 		doesn't provide any answers to our questions, the transfer is
> suspended
> 		for a very weird reason and we are out of options; I would
> like to hear
> 		other members opinions on that subject with a hope of seeking
> some
> 		answers that RIPE didn't provide after numerous attempts.
> 
> 		Our company's extracts are created by Ukraine's Ministry of
> Justice and
> 		have a specific line near the director field which says '(не
> має)' right
> 		after mentioning the director's name, which means "(doesn't
> have)" from
> 		Ukrainian.
> 		ПОЧТАРЬОВ ДМИТРО ОЛЕГОВИЧ - керівник з 25.05.2016 (не має);
> 
> 		We had this line on all our extracts since the company was
> opened and
> 		RIPE has a) accepted us as a member by reviewing those
> extracts b)
> 		approved numerous in and out transfers with those extracts
> since 2016
> 		c) recently approved a transfer out about 2 weeks ago using
> the extract
> 		with the same line.
> 
> 		4 days ago we have requested another transfer and a RIPE rep.
> has asked
> 		us to clarify about what '(не має)' means in our extract. We
> have no
> 		clue what it means exactly and never interested because it was
> present
> 		since a first extract, also because RIPE has never questioned
> it before,
> 		and as I have mentioned, all the previous extracts came with
> that line.
> 
> 		We don't have a clue of what it means and the RIPE's rep.
> decided to
> 		suspend the transfer and make a request to Ukraine's Ministry
> of
> 		Justice, which was very unexpected decision from our point of
> view.
> 		She told us that "Though we process tens of requests of
> Ukrainian
> 		companies every day, it's first time that we see such a
> record. It's not
> 		entirely clear what it means and what you as a Director "do
> not have".",
> 		to which I responded it's a false statement, because RIPE
> certainly HAS
> 		SEEN this line before, at least because my company have
> performed many
> 		transfers and requests with RIPE, which have been approved
> using same
> 		extracts. In this case, she talked about her own experience in
> the name
> 		of RIPE, which already was not very professional.
> 
> 		So I obviously asked why does some her or RIPE's unawareness
> in
> 		Ukraine's legislation should concern us, to what I got no
> answer at all.
> 		Are we really responsible for RIPE's lack of knowledge on some
> subject?
> 		Our company is active and the extracts are all valid on the
> min. justice
> 		site, also the signee of the T.A. corresponds to the director
> name -
> 		this all makes us compliant to the RIPE's rules and policies,
> which, we
> 		believe should have made this transfer complete already.
> 
> 		Notwithstanding our expectations, RIPE didn't provide any
> answer to our
> 		questions and also didn't tell why this specific matter should
> concern
> 		this specific transfer, since there were already approved
> transfers
> 		using same extract. Now we must wait about 2 or 3 weeks until
> the Min.
> 		of Justice responds them to clarify this, which made us very
> 		disappointed, since we still do not understand why this case
> affects our
> 		transfer at all.
> 
> 		This is very frustrating and we have no more choices but
> hearing other
> 		members opinions and suggestions, if any. Doesn't it look like
> RIPE is
> 		very contradictory to its own policies in this case?
> 
> 
> 
> 		_______________________________________________
> 		members-discuss mailing list
> 		members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
> 		https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
> 		Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-
> discuss/terrence%40darkness-reigns.com
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5051 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20200303/2a7ba49d/attachment.p7s>