From hph at oslo.net Sun May 4 13:55:55 2014 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 13:55:55 +0200 Subject: Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE In-Reply-To: <535E4D6D.4020405@oslo.net> References: <535E4D6D.4020405@oslo.net> Message-ID: <53662ACB.8030902@oslo.net> Dear colleagues, The Working-group chairs have for some time been discussing how to improve the Policy Development Process as described in RIPE-500. A small task force with Brian Nisbet as the coordinator and Ondrej Filip, Nick Hilliard and Hans Petter Holen as members has worked out the final details in the text. The wg-chairs have reached consensus on the attached proposal. The main change in the PDP is to allow the Working-group Chairs of the working-group developing the policy to declare consensus. This allows for a more timely conclusion of the PDP, but also allows for the Working-group chairs collectively to act as an appeals body. I am circulating the new text now for community review and the intent is to put this in place at the coming RIPE meeting. Yours Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen RIPE Deputy Chair -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: revised PDP_1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 218950 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- Policy Development Process in RIPE Rob Blokzijl Kurt Erik Lindqvist Filiz Yilmaz Document ID: ripe-xxx Date: Obsoletes: ripe-500 1. Introduction This document describes the RIPE Policy Development Process (RIPE PDP), outlining how policies relating to the operation of the Internet are developed by and for the RIPE community. Since its creation in 1989, RIPE has been a forum for people to decide on common practices. These common practices may come in different forms and/or under different names: * Best common practice (BCP) * Recommendations and guidelines to the community * Recommendations and guidelines to the RIPE NCC * Policy This document refers solely to ?Policy?. The process that results in the creation of a policy has some important and fundamental principles: a. It is open to all and follows an established, bottom-up process of collaboration. Everyone interested in the well-being of the Internet may propose a policy and take part in the discussions that follow on from the proposal. b. It is transparent. All discussions and resulting actions are documented and freely available to all. c. Conclusions are reached by consensus. d. All policies are documented within RIPE Documents and placed in the RIPE Document Store. The policies referred to in this document are those developed through the bottom-up RIPE PDP. This document does not describe the specific administrative or technical procedures established in order for a policy to be applied. Depending on the specifics of a policy, procedures can be set by the Local Internet Registries (LIRs), End Users and the RIPE NCC as required. These procedures must conform to all policies that are in place. RIPE Policies are also separate from RIPE NCC business practices and procedures. Business practices and procedures that the RIPE NCC follows are defined and governed by the RIPE NCC Executive Board and approved by the RIPE NCC membership. If a policy proposal would bring implementation and/or operational problems for the RIPE NCC if accepted, the RIPE NCC Executive Board is tasked to notify the RIPE community accordingly as well as to make necessary suggestions and recommendations about possible changes to the proposal. 2. The Process The process of developing a policy has four distinct phases: 1. Creating a Proposal 2. Discussion Phase 3. Review Phase 4. Concluding Phase These four phases are detailed below with timelines. They are proposed deadlines for the various stages. Individual proposals may choose to vary these, but the actual timescales must be documented. In all phases of the RIPE PDP, suggestions for changes to the proposal and objections regarding the proposal must be justified with supporting arguments. In this process, the RIPE NCC (the RIPE community's secretariat) gives administrative support by: * Publishing proposals and related discussions on relevant webpages * Tracking deadlines * Making announcements to the RIPE community * Providing assistance in drafting policy proposals if requested * Providing relevant facts and statistics * Publishing an impact analysis that points to the possible effects of the proposed policy and the work that would be involved in its implementation. The process flow is illustrated in a diagram, attached as Appendix A. There are a number of points in the PDP at which disputes could arise. The PDP is designed so that compromises can be made and genuine consensus achieved. However, there are times when even the most reasonable and knowledgeable people are unable to agree on the decisions made at the end of any PDP phase. To achieve the goals of openness, transparency and fairness, such conflicts must be resolved through a process of open review and discussion. This process is documented in Appendix C, RIPE Policy Development Dispute Resolution. 2.1 Creating a Proposal Discussions may be started by anyone at any time. Participants are welcome to discuss broad ideas as well as to make detailed policy proposals. Proposals are made using the Policy Proposal template, attached as Appendix B. The template forms a structure for the proposal. It details the reason for the proposal and any perceived consequences of the proposal. A proposal is discussed publicly in the relevant RIPE Working Group (WG)[1]. The proposal is usually submitted via the chair of that WG. If the proposer [2] is not certain which WG is appropriate for discussion of the proposal, they can send the proposal to the RIPE Chair at policy-proposal at ripe.net. In some cases, a proposal may need more than one WG?s input. In such cases, before the proposal is published, the relevant WG chairs will discuss the situation and decide the WG most suited to discussion of the proposal. Necessary announcements will be made to the other WG(s) so they can follow the discussions. The RIPE NCC gives each proposal its own unique identifier and publishes it on a dedicated RIPE webpage. This webpage contains the version history and the status of all proposals. A proposal can have one of the following statuses at any given time: * Open for Discussion: Meaning that the proposal is still being discussed within the RIPE PDP. * Accepted: Meaning that the RIPE community accepted the proposal after all stages of the RIPE PDP were completed. * Withdrawn: Meaning that the proposal is withdrawn either by the proposer or by the WG chairs at one of the decision-making points. 2.2 Discussion Phase Once a proposal is submitted, it is announced on the Policy Announce Mailing List (policy-announce at ripe.net), which anyone can subscribe to. This announcement also indicates where discussion on the proposal will take place. This is usually sent to the relevant WG mailing list. The WG chair sets the period for the Discussion Phase and this is at least four weeks. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG chair, decides whether the proposal will move to the next phase (Review Phase) or if it should be withdrawn from the RIPE PDP, depending on the feedback received. This should be done no more than four weeks after the end of the Discussion Phase. If the proposer does not communicate this decision to the WG chair within four weeks, the WG chair can withdraw the proposal due to lack of response from the proposer. If significant comments or changes are suggested during the Discussion Phase, the proposer will edit the proposal and the new version of the proposal will be published. A new Discussion Phase will then start for the new version of the proposal. If the suggested comments and changes are not so significant to require a new Discussion Phase, the proposer and WG chair can decide to move the proposal to the next phase (Review Phase) with a new version of the proposal incorporating the necessary edits. Each version of the proposal is publicly archived to transparently show the history of changes to the proposal. If the proposer decides to take the proposal to the next phase, the draft RIPE Document should be prepared within four weeks. A policy proposal can result in the modification of an existing RIPE Document or can result in publication of a completely new RIPE Document. If the proposal is a modification of an existing policy or it is a new policy that needs to be documented in an existing RIPE Document, then a draft RIPE Document clearly pointing to the changes to the existing document will be published. If the proposal requires a completely new RIPE Document to be published, the draft should be produced before the proposal can be moved to the Review Phase. The RIPE NCC will also conduct and publish an impact analysis about the proposal before it can be moved to the Review Phase. The goal of this analysis is to provide relevant supporting information to facilitate the discussions about the proposal and provide some projections about the possible impact if it were to be accepted. This analysis will contain the following points: * The RIPE NCC's understanding of the proposed policy * Impact on the registry and addressing systems (including Internet resource consumption, aggregation and fragmentation) * Impact on RIPE NCC operations/services * Legal impact 2.3 Review Phase The purpose of the Review phase is to review the full draft RIPE Document compiled at the end of the Discussion Phase so that the final documentation the proposal will lead to and all modifications made to that document are transparent to the community. During the Review Phase, discussion of the proposal can continue, also in the light of the impact analysis that is published at the beginning of this phase, and within the context of the proposal, further modifications can still be suggested regarding the draft RIPE Document. The Review Phase should last for a maximum of four weeks. At the end of the Review Phase, the WG chair determines whether the WG has reached rough consensus. If the WG chair decides that consensus has not been reached, then the WG chair can withdraw the proposal. Alternatively, the WG chair can send the proposal back to the Discussion Phase if the proposer is willing to continue to author the proposal and make the necessary changes to the proposal according to the feedback received from the community. The WG chair can also decide to have the draft RIPE Document edited and start a new Review Phase with a new version of the proposal. 2.4 Concluding Phase If the WG chair determines that the WG has reached consensus at the end of the Review Phase, the WG chair moves the proposal to a "Last Call for Comments" and the Concluding Phase starts. The Last Call period lasts four weeks. The Last Call announcement is also posted to the WG mailing list and to the Policy Announce Mailing List (policy-announce at ripe.net). The purpose of this Last Call period is to provide the community with a final opportunity to comment on the proposal. This is mainly intended for those who missed the previous two phases and want to oppose the proposal. It gives time to the community after the relevant WG chair declares rough consensus at the end of the Review Phase so that suggestions for any final changes or objections to the proposal can be sent to the WG mailing list. At this stage, objections need to be justified just as in the other phases for them to be taken into account. At the end of the Last Call period, the WG chair will evaluate the feedback received during this period and decide whether consensus has been achieved. If there is no feedback from the community at this stage, this is likely to be regarded as consensus and it will mean the previous call of rough consensus from the WG chair at the end of the Review Phase still holds. If consensus has been achieved, the RIPE NCC will announce the decision of the WG chair and, if necessary, implement the policy. If consensus has not been achieved, the WG chair can decide to either withdraw the proposal or send it back to one of the previous phases. The proposer (or anyone else) is free to return the proposal to the WG for further discussion after a withdrawal. 3. Appealable Actions 3.1 Discussion Phase During the Discussion Phase, anyone who has a complaint or other concern about the policy proposal or how it is being handled in the WG should first raise the matter with the chair of that WG. If the dispute cannot be resolved with the WG chair, the Appeals Procedure can be invoked. 3.2 Review & Concluding Phases At these stages of the process ? i.e. after the WG chair has declared initial consensus or the proposal is in Last Call ? complaints should not be about the policy proposal itself unless there are exceptional extenuating circumstances. Anyone who believes that the proposal has not been handled correctly or that the WG chair has made an incorrect determination of consensus should first raise the matter with the WG chair. If the dispute cannot be resolved with the WG chair, the Appeals Procedure can be invoked. 4. Appeals Procedure If a grievance cannot be resolved with the chair of the WG the matter can be brought to the attention of the Working Group Chairs Collective (WGCC). Anyone may submit an appeal. This must be submitted to the relevant WG mailing list(s) and to the Policy Announce Mailing List (policy-announce at ripe.net). The appeal will also be published by the RIPE NCC at appropriate locations on the RIPE web site. Any appeal should include a detailed and specific description of the issues and clearly explain why the appeal was submitted. An appeal must be submitted no later than four weeks after the appealable action has occurred. The WGCC will decide by consensus whether to uphold or reject appeals which have been submitted. The decision of the WGCC should be reached no later than four weeks of an appeal being made. Interested parties shall recuse themselves from any discussion or decision within the WGCC relating to the appeal. If the dispute cannot be resolved by the decision of the WGCC, the issue should be brought to the RIPE Chair. The decision of the RIPE Chair will be final. References [1] The RIPE community has formed a number of working groups to deal with issues and topics affecting the Internet community. Every RIPE Working Group has at least one chair (some working groups may have co-chairs). They are responsible for chairing discussions in the working group and, where necessary, making decisions in the Policy Development Process. [2] A proposal can have more than one author. Appendix A: Policy Development Process Diagram NOTE: The actual timelines of individual proposals may vary. They are documented and announced per proposal. Appendix B: Policy Proposal Template 1. Number (assigned by the RIPE NCC) 2. Policy Proposal Name: 3. Author Details a. name: b. email: c. organisation: 4. Proposal Version (assigned by the RIPE NCC): 5. Submission Date: 6. Suggested RIPE WG for discussion and publication: 7. Proposal Type: a. new, modification or deletion 8. Policy Term: a. Temporary (time period) b. Indefinite 9. Summary of Proposal 10. Policy Text a. Current Policy Text (if modification): b. New Policy Text: 11. Rationale: a. Arguments supporting the proposal b. Arguments opposing the proposal Acknowledgements This document was edited by Fergal Cunningham. RIPE Working Group Chairs have reviewed and commented on the document before it was published. From core at didan.org Mon May 5 14:12:00 2014 From: core at didan.org (=?UTF-8?B?0JDQvdC00YDQtdC5INCi0YDRg9Cx0L3QuNC60L7Qsg==?=) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 15:12:00 +0300 Subject: No subject Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mgrigore at ripe.net Mon May 5 16:07:55 2014 From: mgrigore at ripe.net (Mihnea-Costin Grigore) Date: Mon, 05 May 2014 16:07:55 +0200 Subject: Maintenance on the RIPE Meeting website server Message-ID: <53679B3B.7040102@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, Due to a technical problem we need to perform emergency maintenance work on the server hosting the RIPE Meeting websites and presentation archives. This will affect all the RIPE Meeting website pages (such as ripe68.ripe.net) for the duration of the work. This will *not* affect the main RIPE NCC website (www.ripe.net) as well as RIPE Labs, the LIR Portal and any other RIPE NCC service. The work is planned from 17:00 (UTC+2) and will take an estimated 30 minutes. We apologise in advance for the inconvenience. Regards, -- Mihnea-Costin Grigore RIPE NCC Web Services Team Leader - http://www.ripe.net/ From leo.vegoda at icann.org Thu May 8 16:46:47 2014 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 07:46:47 -0700 Subject: Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE In-Reply-To: <53662ACB.8030902@oslo.net> References: <535E4D6D.4020405@oslo.net> <53662ACB.8030902@oslo.net> Message-ID: <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F23@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Hi, This document is very easy to read. I have one question. When the timelines are described in section two, it says: "These four phases are detailed below with timelines. They are proposed deadlines for the various stages. Individual proposals may choose to vary these, but the actual timescales must be documented." As "proposals" aren't people I am not sure whether the decision to change the timeline sits with the proposer, the WG chair, or someone else. Regards, Leo -----Original Message----- From: ripe-list-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:ripe-list-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Hans Petter Holen Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 4:56 AM To: ripe-list at ripe.net Subject: Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE Dear colleagues, The Working-group chairs have for some time been discussing how to improve the Policy Development Process as described in RIPE-500. A small task force with Brian Nisbet as the coordinator and Ondrej Filip, Nick Hilliard and Hans Petter Holen as members has worked out the final details in the text. The wg-chairs have reached consensus on the attached proposal. The main change in the PDP is to allow the Working-group Chairs of the working-group developing the policy to declare consensus. This allows for a more timely conclusion of the PDP, but also allows for the Working-group chairs collectively to act as an appeals body. I am circulating the new text now for community review and the intent is to put this in place at the coming RIPE meeting. Yours Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen RIPE Deputy Chair -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5495 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sander at steffann.nl Thu May 8 17:14:04 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 17:14:04 +0200 Subject: Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE In-Reply-To: <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F23@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <535E4D6D.4020405@oslo.net> <53662ACB.8030902@oslo.net> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F23@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <5DA7F3F8-8EDB-45A3-98F5-45DC64B79CEC@steffann.nl> Hi Leo, > I have one question. When the timelines are described in section two, it > says: > > "These four phases are detailed below with timelines. They are proposed > deadlines for the various stages. Individual proposals may choose to vary > these, but the actual timescales must be documented." > > As "proposals" aren't people I am not sure whether the decision to change > the timeline sits with the proposer, the WG chair, or someone else. Good question. I think it is the WG chair's responsibility to set the timelines. There are many things that can make a different timescale appropriate. Sometimes only a very small change to the proposal has been made and a short phase just to confirm that the working group agrees is more appropriate. Sometimes a phase would end just before (or in the middle of) a RIPE meeting and a bit longer phase that includes the feedback from the working group session at the RIPE meeting is useful. I think the WG chair is the right person to balance all these things. Cheers, Sander From jim at rfc1035.com Thu May 8 17:20:54 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 16:20:54 +0100 Subject: Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE In-Reply-To: <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F23@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <535E4D6D.4020405@oslo.net> <53662ACB.8030902@oslo.net> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F23@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <8C184F28-B956-4B91-AFB1-C835DE1D8840@rfc1035.com> On 8 May 2014, at 15:46, Leo Vegoda wrote: > As "proposals" aren't people I am not sure whether the decision to change > the timeline sits with the proposer, the WG chair, or someone else. Leo, like pretty much everything else in RIPE, this should be a consensus decision by the relevant WG(s). The WG chair should be responsible for making that happen. I would have hoped it was not necessary to document this. IMO, RIPE needs to keep process and "rules" to the absolute minimum. From koalafil at gmail.com Thu May 8 17:40:25 2014 From: koalafil at gmail.com (Yilmaz, Filiz) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 17:40:25 +0200 Subject: RIPE Programme Committee Elections during RIPE 68 Message-ID: <693C1B8E-6F23-47E9-A845-965F4FA9FAC5@gmail.com> Dear Colleagues, RIPE Programme Committee will hold elections next week in Warsaw for two seats. Please send your nomination together with a bio and a photo at , if you would like to run for the elections. Responsibilities and Expectations for Programme Committee Members are listed in our Charter document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-600 You can find further information at: https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/ripe-pc/become-a-member/ See you next week! Filiz Yilmaz RIPE PC Chair From koalafil at gmail.com Thu May 8 17:49:00 2014 From: koalafil at gmail.com (Yilmaz, Filiz) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 17:49:00 +0200 Subject: Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE In-Reply-To: <8C184F28-B956-4B91-AFB1-C835DE1D8840@rfc1035.com> References: <535E4D6D.4020405@oslo.net> <53662ACB.8030902@oslo.net> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F23@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <8C184F28-B956-4B91-AFB1-C835DE1D8840@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <2C91E6A5-CFA8-4FFE-9E88-D4D2FCB9B248@gmail.com> Hello, As far as I can read from the document, some proposals can enter the system directly through Discussion Phase, without any prior discussion in the WG. In those cases length of the Discussion Phase will be decided by the Chairs of the WG that the proposal was submitted to and accepted in, I assume. I think it will be good practice to make it clear who makes these decisions. Transparency through clear documentation helps processes. Filiz On 08 May 2014, at 17:20, Jim Reid wrote: > On 8 May 2014, at 15:46, Leo Vegoda wrote: > >> As "proposals" aren't people I am not sure whether the decision to change >> the timeline sits with the proposer, the WG chair, or someone else. > > Leo, like pretty much everything else in RIPE, this should be a consensus decision by the relevant WG(s). The WG chair should be responsible for making that happen. > > I would have hoped it was not necessary to document this. IMO, RIPE needs to keep process and "rules" to the absolute minimum. > > > From jim at rfc1035.com Thu May 8 18:06:09 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 17:06:09 +0100 Subject: Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE In-Reply-To: <2C91E6A5-CFA8-4FFE-9E88-D4D2FCB9B248@gmail.com> References: <535E4D6D.4020405@oslo.net> <53662ACB.8030902@oslo.net> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F23@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <8C184F28-B956-4B91-AFB1-C835DE1D8840@rfc1035.com> <2C91E6A5-CFA8-4FFE-9E88-D4D2FCB9B248@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 8 May 2014, at 16:49, "Yilmaz, Filiz" wrote: > As far as I can read from the document, some proposals can enter the system directly through Discussion Phase, without any prior discussion in the WG. Huh? Are all proposals required to be discussed in the WG before they get created and then enter the Discussion Phase of the PDP where they ... eh... get discussed? :-) Can you please explain why this is a problem Filiz and show what text led you to that interpretation? From niall.oreilly at ucd.ie Thu May 8 18:15:37 2014 From: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 17:15:37 +0100 Subject: Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE In-Reply-To: <8C184F28-B956-4B91-AFB1-C835DE1D8840@rfc1035.com> References: <535E4D6D.4020405@oslo.net> <53662ACB.8030902@oslo.net> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F23@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <8C184F28-B956-4B91-AFB1-C835DE1D8840@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: At Thu, 8 May 2014 16:20:54 +0100, Jim Reid wrote: > > On 8 May 2014, at 15:46, Leo Vegoda wrote: > > > As "proposals" aren't people I am not sure whether the decision to change > > the timeline sits with the proposer, the WG chair, or someone else. > > Leo, like pretty much everything else in RIPE, this should be a > consensus decision by the relevant WG(s). The WG chair should be > responsible for making that happen. > > I would have hoped it was not necessary to document this. IMO, RIPE > needs to keep process and "rules" to the absolute minimum. As I read it, Leo's point is that, since the unfortunate phrase, "Individual proposals may choose ..." has to be corrected, we may as well choose the appropriate correction. ATB /Niall From sander at steffann.nl Thu May 8 18:30:12 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 18:30:12 +0200 Subject: Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE In-Reply-To: References: <535E4D6D.4020405@oslo.net> <53662ACB.8030902@oslo.net> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F23@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <8C184F28-B956-4B91-AFB1-C835DE1D8840@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: Hi, > As I read it, Leo's point is that, since the unfortunate phrase, > "Individual proposals may choose ..." has to be corrected, we may > as well choose the appropriate correction. That is how I read it as well. "The WG chair may choose ..." ? Cheers, Sander From niall.oreilly at ucd.ie Thu May 8 18:31:43 2014 From: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Thu, 08 May 2014 17:31:43 +0100 Subject: Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE In-Reply-To: References: <535E4D6D.4020405@oslo.net> <53662ACB.8030902@oslo.net> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F23@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <8C184F28-B956-4B91-AFB1-C835DE1D8840@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <55741d97-7368-4943-b482-7239b8136f43@email.android.com> Wfm On 8 May 2014 17:30:12 GMT+01:00, Sander Steffann wrote: >Hi, > >> As I read it, Leo's point is that, since the unfortunate phrase, >> "Individual proposals may choose ..." has to be corrected, we may >> as well choose the appropriate correction. > >That is how I read it as well. > > "The WG chair may choose ..." ? > >Cheers, >Sander -- Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jim at rfc1035.com Thu May 8 18:46:13 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 17:46:13 +0100 Subject: Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE In-Reply-To: References: <535E4D6D.4020405@oslo.net> <53662ACB.8030902@oslo.net> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F23@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <8C184F28-B956-4B91-AFB1-C835DE1D8840@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <63D27756-0DDE-4FAC-9920-4BDCFCFDFF0A@rfc1035.com> On 8 May 2014, at 17:15, "Niall O'Reilly" wrote: > As I read it, Leo's point is that, since the unfortunate phrase, > "Individual proposals may choose ..." has to be corrected, we may > as well choose the appropriate correction. This text is unchanged from RIPE500 and nobody seemed to notice or care about that. Until now. Presumably that wording was OK when RIPE500 was developed and discussed at great length. Does it *really* need fixing? And fixing right now? Please remember that the object of the changes to RIPE500 are to fix the brokenness around the WGCC declaration of consensus: a tweak to Section 2.4 and streamlining of the Appeals Process in Section 4. Everything else -- the earlier stages of the PDP -- remains unchanged. It took forever to get that revised text put together. IMO now is not the time to re-open that. This will just create further delays and probably mean another year of persevering with the current PDP which is failing us. It would be a great pity if we delay adoption of the revised PDP because of a perceived need to change even more text that so far has not needed attention. I hope everyone can agree to first fix the immediate problem: unblocking the major procedural bottleneck in the sclerotic PDP. If further wordsmithing of this document is needed, can we *please* postpone that to RIPE500v3 and get RIPE500v2 out the door now? I think we should agree the revised document as-is or else reject it completely. If further changes are needed, I hope that discussion of that can be deferred for the next version. My rathole detector alarms are ringing. Loudly. From leo.vegoda at icann.org Thu May 8 18:48:28 2014 From: leo.vegoda at icann.org (Leo Vegoda) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 09:48:28 -0700 Subject: Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE In-Reply-To: References: <535E4D6D.4020405@oslo.net> <53662ACB.8030902@oslo.net> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F23@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <8C184F28-B956-4B91-AFB1-C835DE1D8840@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F4D@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Hi, Niall O'Reilly wrote: > At Thu, 8 May 2014 16:20:54 +0100, Jim Reid wrote: > > > > On 8 May 2014, at 15:46, Leo Vegoda wrote: > > > > > As "proposals" aren't people I am not sure whether the decision to change > > > the timeline sits with the proposer, the WG chair, or someone else. > > > > Leo, like pretty much everything else in RIPE, this should be a > > consensus decision by the relevant WG(s). The WG chair should be > > responsible for making that happen. > > > > I would have hoped it was not necessary to document this. IMO, RIPE > > needs to keep process and "rules" to the absolute minimum. > > As I read it, Leo's point is that, since the unfortunate phrase, > "Individual proposals may choose ..." has to be corrected, we may > as well choose the appropriate correction. I had expected to read something about the decision sitting with the WG or the WG chair. I wondered whether "proposals" was a typo for "proposer", hence the question. Regards, Leo -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5495 bytes Desc: not available URL: From koalafil at gmail.com Thu May 8 18:54:15 2014 From: koalafil at gmail.com (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 18:54:15 +0200 Subject: Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE In-Reply-To: References: <535E4D6D.4020405@oslo.net> <53662ACB.8030902@oslo.net> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F23@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <8C184F28-B956-4B91-AFB1-C835DE1D8840@rfc1035.com> <2C91E6A5-CFA8-4FFE-9E88-D4D2FCB9B248@gmail.com> Message-ID: <11FD4546-044B-40AC-97AE-D96BF5CD0E2C@gmail.com> Jim, I did not say that was a problem nor did I say all proposals should be discussed in the WG before. I was just responding to your comment in regards to Leo's point: --- Leo, like pretty much everything else in RIPE, this should be a consensus decision by the relevant WG(s). The WG chair should be responsible for making that happen. --- "This" should refer to timelines/duration of periods according to Leo's initial point. So what you wrote as a response to him made me think that you want the duration of the period/timeline decision to be a WG consensus decision. This won't happen simply because Discussion Period duration will be set already before WG is informed about the proposal in the first place. You also said: --- I would have hoped it was not necessary to document this. IMO, RIPE needs to keep process and "rules" to the absolute minimum. ---- I think it will be useful to document who decides how long the duration of any period will be, due to transparency reasons. Apart from Discussion phases', I think it is implied that it is the job of the relevant WG Chair's task on the document alteady. I agree with Sander that they are the best ones to make this decision too. By the way, it will be an overkill to seek consensus on duration and times from the WG as a whole which you seem to be suggesting. But maybe you misunderstood Leo's point initially... I am confused now what exactly you are suggesting too. Filiz Sent from my iPhone > On 08 May 2014, at 18:06, Jim Reid wrote: > > >> On 8 May 2014, at 16:49, "Yilmaz, Filiz" wrote: >> >> As far as I can read from the document, some proposals can enter the system directly through Discussion Phase, without any prior discussion in the WG. > > Huh? Are all proposals required to be discussed in the WG before they get created and then enter the Discussion Phase of the PDP where they ... eh... get discussed? :-) > > Can you please explain why this is a problem Filiz and show what text led you to that interpretation? > From sander at steffann.nl Thu May 8 19:32:28 2014 From: sander at steffann.nl (Sander Steffann) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 19:32:28 +0200 Subject: Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE In-Reply-To: <63D27756-0DDE-4FAC-9920-4BDCFCFDFF0A@rfc1035.com> References: <535E4D6D.4020405@oslo.net> <53662ACB.8030902@oslo.net> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F23@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <8C184F28-B956-4B91-AFB1-C835DE1D8840@rfc1035.com> <63D27756-0DDE-4FAC-9920-4BDCFCFDFF0A@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: Hey Jim, > This text is unchanged from RIPE500 and nobody seemed to notice or care about that. Until now. Presumably that wording was OK when RIPE500 was developed and discussed at great length. Does it *really* need fixing? And fixing right now? This specific case is not a very complicated one, just a case of bad language mostly. I don't see why we should publish a document with a known language bug in it. May I suggest fixing it by replacing "Individual proposals may choose to vary these" with e.g. "These may be varied for individual proposals" (or whatever is proper English). No change in meaning, just a cosmetic change so we don't need a cosmetic surgery project later :) I wouldn't have a problem with a native English speaker fixing these little things when publishing the new version as a RIPE document. As long as it is just language fixes we shouldn't waste any time on them. Cheers, Sander From jim at rfc1035.com Thu May 8 19:44:20 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 18:44:20 +0100 Subject: Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE In-Reply-To: <11FD4546-044B-40AC-97AE-D96BF5CD0E2C@gmail.com> References: <535E4D6D.4020405@oslo.net> <53662ACB.8030902@oslo.net> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F23@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <8C184F28-B956-4B91-AFB1-C835DE1D8840@rfc1035.com> <2C91E6A5-CFA8-4FFE-9E88-D4D2FCB9B248@gmail.com> <11FD4546-044B-40AC-97AE-D96BF5CD0E2C@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 8 May 2014, at 17:54, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: > "This" should refer to timelines/duration of periods according to Leo's initial point. So what you wrote as a response to him made me think that you want the duration of the period/timeline decision to be a WG consensus decision. This won't happen simply because Discussion Period duration will be set already before WG is informed about the proposal in the first place. Filiz, we are talking at cross-purposes. I was not remotely suggesting a heavyweight "WG consensus decision". Which I think you think I was. [You should know me far better than that. I am the Ayatollah of anti-process.] What I envisaged was nothing more than somebody saying "I think this proposal needs N weeks of discussion", the WG shrugging in approval and then that informal, lightweight decision getting written up as part of the proposal's documentation. Anyways, this is all somewhat moot. I ask that we stop rat-holing on this document and either accept it as-is or reject it. The focus of the discussion should be on the *changes* to RIPE500 in Sections 2.4 and 4. If we continue to pick nits and wordsmith by mailing list, we'll never get this completed. Getting the WG Chairs Collective to make a consensus decision has proven to be harder than nailing jelly to a wall. It's also turned out to be unnecessary. The revised text gets rid of that and also simplifies the Appeals Procedure. If the revised text is adopted, it should make the PDP more effective and speedy than it is today. If the PDP document needs further work, let's do that after RIPE500-bis is accepted. If that extra work has to be done now, we're going to be stuck with the current failing PDP for at least another year, possibly longer, and I hope nobody wants that. From koalafil at gmail.com Thu May 8 19:54:06 2014 From: koalafil at gmail.com (Filiz Yilmaz) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 19:54:06 +0200 Subject: Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE In-Reply-To: References: <535E4D6D.4020405@oslo.net> <53662ACB.8030902@oslo.net> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F23@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <8C184F28-B956-4B91-AFB1-C835DE1D8840@rfc1035.com> <2C91E6A5-CFA8-4FFE-9E88-D4D2FCB9B248@gmail.com> <11FD4546-044B-40AC-97AE-D96BF5CD0E2C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <97DC9775-5F08-414B-853B-066B117F7D62@gmail.com> Sorry Jim but in this case you sounded like more the Ayatollah of confusion :). I do not see any major wordsmithing suggested by Leo or me. I agree we all agree in fact. Let's move on but obviously Leo's question has remit and should not require a major PDP process to change the subject of a confusing sentence as we are at it! NCC can do that easily as Sander suggested. Just cosmetics. Filiz Sent from my iPhone > On 08 May 2014, at 19:44, Jim Reid wrote: > >> On 8 May 2014, at 17:54, Filiz Yilmaz wrote: >> >> "This" should refer to timelines/duration of periods according to Leo's initial point. So what you wrote as a response to him made me think that you want the duration of the period/timeline decision to be a WG consensus decision. This won't happen simply because Discussion Period duration will be set already before WG is informed about the proposal in the first place. > > Filiz, we are talking at cross-purposes. I was not remotely suggesting a heavyweight "WG consensus decision". Which I think you think I was. [You should know me far better than that. I am the Ayatollah of anti-process.] What I envisaged was nothing more than somebody saying "I think this proposal needs N weeks of discussion", the WG shrugging in approval and then that informal, lightweight decision getting written up as part of the proposal's documentation. > > Anyways, this is all somewhat moot. > > I ask that we stop rat-holing on this document and either accept it as-is or reject it. The focus of the discussion should be on the *changes* to RIPE500 in Sections 2.4 and 4. If we continue to pick nits and wordsmith by mailing list, we'll never get this completed. > > Getting the WG Chairs Collective to make a consensus decision has proven to be harder than nailing jelly to a wall. It's also turned out to be unnecessary. The revised text gets rid of that and also simplifies the Appeals Procedure. If the revised text is adopted, it should make the PDP more effective and speedy than it is today. > > If the PDP document needs further work, let's do that after RIPE500-bis is accepted. If that extra work has to be done now, we're going to be stuck with the current failing PDP for at least another year, possibly longer, and I hope nobody wants that. From jim at rfc1035.com Thu May 8 20:03:27 2014 From: jim at rfc1035.com (Jim Reid) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 19:03:27 +0100 Subject: Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE In-Reply-To: References: <535E4D6D.4020405@oslo.net> <53662ACB.8030902@oslo.net> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F23@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <8C184F28-B956-4B91-AFB1-C835DE1D8840@rfc1035.com> <63D27756-0DDE-4FAC-9920-4BDCFCFDFF0A@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <6D5318DE-C7C2-4964-980A-8F00DB814813@rfc1035.com> On 8 May 2014, at 18:32, Sander Steffann wrote: > This specific case is not a very complicated one, just a case of bad language mostly. I don't see why we should publish a document with a known language bug in it. It's a bit more than a language bug Sander and there's no consensus (yet) on what text should replace it. That text has been in RIPE500 for years. Nobody complained. Or cared. It's not caused any problems. So leave it alone for now IMO. There's a broken PDP that needs fixing. I hope we can put out that fire without having a long discussion about what colour the fire engine should be or who gets to repaint it. > I wouldn't have a problem with a native English speaker fixing these little things when publishing the new version as a RIPE document. As long as it is just language fixes we shouldn't waste any time on them. I am not sure it's a good idea to make "little fixes" like that on the fly. Yes, I know this sort of contradicts my healthy disregard for process and preference for pragmatic solutions. I fear if we re-open the revised document for further changes or little fixes, the discussions will terminate some time after the next Ice Age. YMMV. From hph at oslo.net Sun May 11 22:44:47 2014 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 22:44:47 +0200 Subject: Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE In-Reply-To: <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F23@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <535E4D6D.4020405@oslo.net> <53662ACB.8030902@oslo.net> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F23@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <536FE13F.1020605@oslo.net> Hi Leo, Thanks for your comments, On 08.05.14 16:46, Leo Vegoda wrote: > Hi, > > This document is very easy to read. > > I have one question. When the timelines are described in section two, it > says: The changes to the document are 2.4 3* and 4*. > > "These four phases are detailed below with timelines. They are proposed > deadlines for the various stages. Individual proposals may choose to vary > these, but the actual timescales must be documented." > > As "proposals" aren't people I am not sure whether the decision to change > the timeline sits with the proposer, the WG chair, or someone else. As this applies to the original version authored by R. Blokzijl, K. Lindqvist & F. Yilmaz in 2010, we could probably keep the proposal to change this separate from the current proposal which is to change 2.4 and outward to let final consensus be declared by the Chair of the individual and using WG-chairs collective for appeals? Hans Petter > > Regards, > > Leo > > -----Original Message----- > From: ripe-list-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:ripe-list-bounces at ripe.net] On > Behalf Of Hans Petter Holen > Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 4:56 AM > To: ripe-list at ripe.net > Subject: Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE > > Dear colleagues, > The Working-group chairs have for some time been discussing how to > improve the Policy Development Process as described in RIPE-500. A small > task force with Brian Nisbet as the coordinator and Ondrej Filip, Nick > Hilliard and Hans Petter Holen as members has worked out the final > details in the text. > > The wg-chairs have reached consensus on the attached proposal. > > The main change in the PDP is to allow the Working-group Chairs of the > working-group developing the policy to declare consensus. > > This allows for a more timely conclusion of the PDP, but also allows for > the Working-group chairs collectively to act as an appeals body. > > I am circulating the new text now for community review and the intent is > to put this in place at the coming RIPE meeting. > > > Yours Sincerely, > > Hans Petter Holen > RIPE Deputy Chair > -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph at oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hph at oslo.net Sun May 11 23:16:21 2014 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 23:16:21 +0200 Subject: Agenda for the RIPE 68 Working Group Chairs Meeting Message-ID: <536FE8A5.8070908@oslo.net> Dear Colleagues, The RIPE Working Group (WG) Chairs meet over lunch at the RIPE Meetings to coordinate and discuss. The agenda for our meeting this week has been published at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/cc/agenda/ripe-68 If you have any input on any of the agenda items, feel free to raise them in your Working Group or to your Working Group chair. Agendas and summaries from the meetings can be found at https://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/cc Please let me know if you have any comments or improvement suggestions for the future. Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen RIPE Deputy Chair From hph at oslo.net Sun May 11 23:37:08 2014 From: hph at oslo.net (Hans Petter Holen) Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 23:37:08 +0200 Subject: Updates to RIPE-500: Policy Development in RIPE In-Reply-To: References: <535E4D6D.4020405@oslo.net> <53662ACB.8030902@oslo.net> <5648A8908CCB564EBF46E2BC904A75B1A3BEE30F23@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <8C184F28-B956-4B91-AFB1-C835DE1D8840@rfc1035.com> <63D27756-0DDE-4FAC-9920-4BDCFCFDFF0A@rfc1035.com> Message-ID: <536FED84.2040001@oslo.net> Hi Sander & all, your proposal looks like a good solution to me. replacing "Individual proposals may choose to vary these" with e.g. "These may be varied for individual proposals" Hans Petter On 08.05.14 19:32, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hey Jim, > >> This text is unchanged from RIPE500 and nobody seemed to notice or care about that. Until now. Presumably that wording was OK when RIPE500 was developed and discussed at great length. Does it *really* need fixing? And fixing right now? > This specific case is not a very complicated one, just a case of bad language mostly. I don't see why we should publish a document with a known language bug in it. > > May I suggest fixing it by replacing "Individual proposals may choose to vary these" with e.g. "These may be varied for individual proposals" (or whatever is proper English). No change in meaning, just a cosmetic change so we don't need a cosmetic surgery project later :) > > I wouldn't have a problem with a native English speaker fixing these little things when publishing the new version as a RIPE document. As long as it is just language fixes we shouldn't waste any time on them. > > Cheers, > Sander > -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph at oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net From meeting at ripe.net Mon May 12 13:00:00 2014 From: meeting at ripe.net (RIPE Meeting) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 13:00:00 +0200 Subject: RIPE 68 Opening Today Message-ID: <5370A9B0.2060304@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, The RIPE 68 Meeting will be opened in Warsaw today at 14:00 local time by RIPE Chair, Rob Blokzijl. This will be followed by a welcome speech from Jakub Kozio? of PLNOG, the host of this RIPE Meeting. If you cannot be at RIPE 68 in person, you can follow the proceedings and participate remotely by viewing the live webcast and using the chat facilities: https://ripe68.ripe.net/live/main/ Your participation will ensure that this will be another excellent RIPE Meeting! Kind regards, Gergana Petrova on behalf of The RIPE Meeting Team From fmafi at ripe.net Tue May 13 09:18:31 2014 From: fmafi at ripe.net (Fatemah Mafi) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 09:18:31 +0200 Subject: RIPE 68 Daily Meeting Report Message-ID: <3A62FC3B-ABC5-4215-AEFB-D10CD5EA1525@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, RIPE 68 opened yesterday in Warsaw. 476 attendees checked in, with this RIPE Meeting set to be the largest to date. The Daily Meeting Report is available online: https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/report/monday/ Some of Monday's highlights included: - A presentation on "Project Turris", a CZ.NIC not-for-profit research project that helps protect users' home networks - APNIC's Geoff Huston's presentation on the expansion of BGP tables over time - A lightning talk on cybercrime by Samaneh Tajalizadehkhoob, selected to present RIPE 68 by the RIPE Academic Cooperation Initiative (RACI) Archived webcasts of all sessions are available at: https://ripe68.ripe.net/attend/about-remote-participation/ We will update the Daily Meeting Report online each day. Stay tuned! https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/report/ Fatemah Mafi On behalf of The RIPE Meeting Organisation Team RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From agollan at ripe.net Tue May 13 15:41:49 2014 From: agollan at ripe.net (Antony Gollan) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 15:41:49 +0200 Subject: I* Post NETmundial Meeting Statement Message-ID: <509CFC8C-A333-4C45-8E2C-6EA1A399C4C2@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, Leaders of the organisations responsible for coordination of the Internet technical infrastructure (loosely referred to as ?I* leaders?) met on 25 April in S?o Paulo, Brazil following the NETmundial meeting. During the 1-day I* leaders meeting, the group considered a range of issues where dialogue among Internet technical organisations is useful. In particular, the group highlighted that the NETmundial meeting has energised the multistakeholder discussions and model in a positive fashion. The leaders highlighted the importance of open, collaborative, bottom-up processes across meetings and organisations dealing with the Internet. During the meeting, the group reflected on a number of other topics as well: I. Transition of NTIA?s Stewardship of the IANA Functions and review of ICANN accountability processes. http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition II. The announcement made by ICANN CEO of the launch of a process to review and improve ICANN?s own oversight/accountability mechanism and how it is complementary to the IANA function?s stewardship evolution process. III. Upcoming Internet Governance meetings including the Internet Governance Forum and the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/2014-itu-plenipotentiary-conference-background-paper IV. Coordination of experiences, plans and resources to further deploy DNSSEC via the ccTLD community. V. Identification of issues and players to further enable adoption of Internationalised Domain Names (IDNs) toward accelerating their adoption in communities that don?t use the Latin Character sets. The group bade farewell to Ra?l Echeberr?a, CEO of LACNIC and Leslie Daigle, Chief Internet Technology Officer of the Internet Society. Participating Leaders ? Adiel A. Akplogan, CEO African Network Information Center (AFRINIC) ? Barrack Otieno, Manager, The African Top Level Domains Organization (AFTLD) ? Paul Wilson, Director General Asia-Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) ? Don Hollander, General Manager Asia Pacific Top Level Domain Association (APTLD) ? John Curran, CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) ? Peter Van Roste, General Manager, Council for European National Top Level Domain Registries (CENTR) ? Russ Housley, Chair Internet Architecture Board (IAB) ? Fadi Chehad?, President and CEO Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ? Jari Arkko, Chair Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) ? Kathy Brown, President and CEO Internet Society (ISOC) ? Ra?l Echeberr?a, CEO Latin America and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry (LACNIC) ? Carolina Aguerre, General Manager, Latin American and Caribbean TLD Association (LACTLD) ? Axel Pawlik, Managing Director R?seaux IP Europ?ens Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC) ? Tim Berners-Lee, Director, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Kind regards Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC From becha at ripe.net Tue May 13 16:59:58 2014 From: becha at ripe.net (Vesna Manojlovic) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 16:59:58 +0200 Subject: RIPE Atlas use cases and more Message-ID: <60B4316B-262E-463D-A7DD-4F37ABD83C50@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, There have been a lot of great examples recently of how RIPE Atlas can be used to investigate network events, troubleshoot problems, explore how the Internet behaves, and more. Some of the topics include: - Investigating customer complaints about slow servers - Comparing TCP and UDP Response Times of DNS Root Servers - Discovering Path MTU black holes on the Internet We?ve collected all of these user experiences, analyses, papers and presentations in one place on RIPE Labs, in order to make it easy to discover how others are making use of the RIPE Atlas network - and maybe spark some ideas about how you can, too. https://labs.ripe.net/atlas/user-experiences If you have your own story about how you?ve used RIPE Atlas, we want to hear from you! Please get in touch with us at atlas at ripe.net. Kind regards, Vesna Manojlovic Measurements Community Building RIPE NCC From fmafi at ripe.net Wed May 14 09:19:45 2014 From: fmafi at ripe.net (Fatemah Mafi) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 09:19:45 +0200 Subject: RIPE 68 Daily Meeting Report Message-ID: Dear colleagues, 529 participants have checked in to RIPE 68 so far, and Tuesday hosted a variety of topics, ranging from cybersecurity to IPv6. The Daily Meeting Report is available online: https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/report/tuesday Some of Tuesday?s highlights included: - The Panel on Internet Governance Landscape 2014, chaired by Filiz Yilma, Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group Member - Job Snijders?s presentation about ?selective blackholing? - A plenary session celebrating 25 years of RIPE, featuring a live video appearance by Google?s Vint Cerf You can participate in RIPE 68 sessions remotely: https://ripe68.ripe.net/live/ Archived webcasts of all sessions are available at: https://ripe68.ripe.net/archives/ We will update the Daily Meeting Report online each day. Stay tuned! https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/report/ Fatemah Mafi On behalf of The RIPE Meeting Organisation Team RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From fmafi at ripe.net Thu May 15 09:25:33 2014 From: fmafi at ripe.net (Fatemah Mafi) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 09:25:33 +0200 Subject: RIPE 68 Daily Meeting Report Message-ID: <6F69DA46-6E42-41E4-AAF6-714D0C21F3E4@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, The third day of RIPE 68 saw some good debate on a number of topics, with 551 participants checked in. The full Daily Meeting Report is available online: https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/report/wednesday Some of Wednesday?s topics included: - Making the RIPE Database more intuitive for new users - How to clear up ambiguity in policy texts - The monitoring of DNS infrastructure - Oversight of the RIPE Atlas project You can participate in RIPE 68 sessions remotely: https://ripe68.ripe.net/live/ Archived webcasts of all sessions are available at: https://ripe68.ripe.net/archives/ We will update the Daily Meeting Report online each day. Stay tuned! https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/report/ Fatemah Mafi On behalf of The RIPE Meeting Organisation Team RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From fmafi at ripe.net Fri May 16 09:24:51 2014 From: fmafi at ripe.net (Fatemah Mafi) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 09:24:51 +0200 Subject: RIPE 68 Daily Meeting Report Message-ID: <95C543FD-8AE2-44E7-86F2-4F3651ECA52B@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, The fourth day of RIPE 68 saw some lively discussions on a variety of issues, with 564 participants checked in. The full Daily Meeting Report is available online: https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/report/thursday Some of Thursday's highlights included: - The formation of the Connect Working Group - A talk about Internet-wide active scanning and ethics by Zakir Durumeric, University of Michigan - A community discussion of the NTIA?s intention to transition out of IANA oversight. - The RIPE Academic Cooperation Initiative (RACI) BoF You can participate in RIPE 68 sessions remotely: https://ripe68.ripe.net/live/ Archived webcasts of all sessions are available at: https://ripe68.ripe.net/archives/ We will update the Daily Meeting Report online each day. Stay tuned! https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/report/ Fatemah Mafi On behalf of The RIPE Meeting Organisation Team RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From fmafi at ripe.net Fri May 16 17:12:44 2014 From: fmafi at ripe.net (Fatemah Mafi) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 17:12:44 +0200 Subject: RIPE 68 Daily Meeting Report Message-ID: Dear colleagues, RIPE 68 closed this morning in Warsaw with a record number of 569 attendees checked in. In the Closing Plenary, Rob Blokzijl stepped down as RIPE Chair and Hans Petter Holen assumed the role of RIPE Chair. The full Daily Meeting Report is available online: https://ripe68.ripe.net/programme/report/friday Some of today's highlights included: - A presentation by Emile Aben (RIPE NCC) on OpenIP, an idea about how to crowdsource geolocation of IP addresses - The election of Jan Zorz, Internet Society, and Meredith Whittaker, Google, to the RIPE Programme Committee - Lightning talks delivered by Randy Bush, Internet Initiative Japan, particularly his talk on using RPKI for OpenFlow Switches - The celebration of Rob Blokzijl's contributions to RIPE - Hans Petter Holen assuming the role of RIPE Chair You can view the RIPE 68 archives at: https://ripe68.ripe.net/archives/ RIPE 69 will be held from 3-7 November 2014 at the Novotel London West Hotel in London, United Kingdom. We look forward to seeing you there! Fatemah Mafi On behalf of The RIPE Meeting Organisation Team RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From ripencc-management at ripe.net Wed May 21 10:31:30 2014 From: ripencc-management at ripe.net (Andrew de la Haye) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 10:31:30 +0200 Subject: RIPE NCC Receives Allocation from IANA's Recovered IPv4 Pool Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Yesterday, on 20 May 2014, the RIPE NCC and other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) were allocated what will likely be one of the last significant blocks of IPv4 addresses we receive from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA). Each RIR received the equivalent of a /11 of IPv4 address space. The RIPE NCC was allocated the IPv4 address range 45.128.0.0/11 and we are currently adding this to our available pool. Following the exhaustion of IANA's free pool of IPv4 addresses in 2011, when the RIRs received their final /8s, a global policy caused IANA to create a recovered pool of leftover and returned IPv4 address blocks. This policy was ratified by all five RIR communities in 2012 and stated that IANA would begin making equal, periodic allocations from the recovered pool when the first RIR reached a /9 of remaining addresses. This point was reached by LACNIC, the RIR for Latin America and the Caribbean yesterday, which triggered the global policy and thus the first post-exhaustion allocation from IANA. You can read the global policy here: http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/global-addressing/allocation-ipv4-post-exhaustion Now that the policy is active, the RIPE NCC will receive one-fifth of any recovered addresses in the pool every six months (every March and September). The RIPE NCC will continue to distribute these according to the current last /8 policy, under which LIRs may receive a one-time /22 allocation (1,024 addresses). With yet another RIR reaching IPv4 exhaustion, it is important that network operators continue to deploy IPv6 on their networks to ensure the future growth of the Internet. More information on IPv6 deployment can be found here: www.ipv6actnow.com Kind regards Andrew de la Haye Chief Operations Officer RIPE NCC From mir at ripe.net Fri May 23 16:23:19 2014 From: mir at ripe.net (Mirjam Kuehne) Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 16:23:19 +0200 Subject: Tribute to Rob Blokzijl Online Message-ID: <537F59D7.4040403@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, During the closing plenary at RIPE 68, we could only show some of the videos sent to celebrate Rob Blokzijl's 25 years as RIPE Chair. As promised, here is the full version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-rHXkCsDsY&feature=youtu.be Enjoy, and thanks very much to everybody who contributed. Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC From enog at ripe.net Mon May 26 09:48:17 2014 From: enog at ripe.net (ENOG) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 11:48:17 +0400 Subject: ENOG 7 Opens Today Message-ID: <5382F1C1.60002@ripe.net> Dear colleagues, The ENOG 7/ RIPE NCC Regional Meeting opens in Moscow today at 12:00 local time. If you cannot attend in person, you can follow the proceedings and participate remotely by viewing the live webcast and using the chat facilities: http://www.enog.org/live-stream/ http://www.enog.org/ru/pryamaya-translyatsiya/ Your participation will ensure that this will be another excellent event for the region! Kind regards, Gergana Petrova Conference Coordinator RIPE NCC