From one point of view, situation seems very strange. From second - nothing to be not real in practice. So we (first time?) faced with IP reclamation dispute. I don't really know did our clients something bad -
Hello! Today I just got a strange letter from RIPE staff. I didn't saw anything like that before. They told me about a ten of networks registered through our LIR. All these networks have changed admin-c and tech-c to other country, and routed through one server on that country. Based on this, RIPE man sent the notification about reclamation of that networks, as "that seems to don't be valid anymore." Of course, I immediately contacted my client and asked what's happened. He said they work as usual, but one certain offshore IT company is used to manage their networks. So they changed contact details to that company, as that company is correct contact point in any network questions. And traffic flows through the offshore company site as they manage and control it, hosts data, etc. perhaps no, as none from these nets listed at Spamhouse ;). I think it is 50/50. May be they told me (and RIPE) truth, may be lied. I can't 100% check it by tools/rights/possibilities I have. But about ten of businesses are on decision of one person that "seems to ...". My strong position is THERE SHOULD BE A COURT DECISION OR OUR COMMUNITY COURT-LIKE STRUCTURE, and only that structure based on court-like controversy process (if not a real court) can make a decision about reclaim any address space. NO WAYS LIKE "IT SEEMS TO...". So now we have: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html#42 My proposal is to change: "Violation of Law by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or violation of RIPE Policy by the End User" to "Violation of Law by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or violation of RIPE Policy by the End User, SUPPORTED BY..." By what? By Dutch Court? By some independent court-like staff? Any ideas? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
From one point of view, situation seems very strange. From second - nothing to be not real in practice. So we (first time?) faced with IP reclamation dispute. I don't really know did our clients something bad -
Hello Max, As long as it is Dutch Court I don't see a problem. If you are against a decision RIPE did make you can go to Dutch Court and ask if they decide to change it. With kind regards, Mark Scholten -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Max Tulyev Sent: woensdag 21 oktober 2009 18:42 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE staff vs Court Hello! Today I just got a strange letter from RIPE staff. I didn't saw anything like that before. They told me about a ten of networks registered through our LIR. All these networks have changed admin-c and tech-c to other country, and routed through one server on that country. Based on this, RIPE man sent the notification about reclamation of that networks, as "that seems to don't be valid anymore." Of course, I immediately contacted my client and asked what's happened. He said they work as usual, but one certain offshore IT company is used to manage their networks. So they changed contact details to that company, as that company is correct contact point in any network questions. And traffic flows through the offshore company site as they manage and control it, hosts data, etc. perhaps no, as none from these nets listed at Spamhouse ;). I think it is 50/50. May be they told me (and RIPE) truth, may be lied. I can't 100% check it by tools/rights/possibilities I have. But about ten of businesses are on decision of one person that "seems to ...". My strong position is THERE SHOULD BE A COURT DECISION OR OUR COMMUNITY COURT-LIKE STRUCTURE, and only that structure based on court-like controversy process (if not a real court) can make a decision about reclaim any address space. NO WAYS LIKE "IT SEEMS TO...". So now we have: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html#42 My proposal is to change: "Violation of Law by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or violation of RIPE Policy by the End User" to "Violation of Law by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or violation of RIPE Policy by the End User, SUPPORTED BY..." By what? By Dutch Court? By some independent court-like staff? Any ideas? -- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
On Oct 21, 2009, at 8:01 PM, Mark Scholten wrote:
Hello Max,
As long as it is Dutch Court I don't see a problem.
If you are against a decision RIPE did make you can go to Dutch Court and ask if they decide to change it.
No you can't...under the standard service agreement which you signed when you became a LIR you signed for the conflict arbitration procedure which is described in RIPE-174. To comment on the orginal complaint, seems to me you got bitten by RIPE-471, section 6.6: ==== 6.6 Validity of an Assignment All assignments are valid as long as the original criteria on which the assignment was based are still valid and the assignment is properly registered in the RIPE Database. If an assignment is made for a specific purpose and that purpose no longer exists, the assignment is no longer valid. If an assignment is based on information that turns out to be invalid, the assignment is no longer valid. For these reasons it is important that LIRs make sure that assignments approved by the RIPE NCC are properly registered in the database. The inetnum object or objects for approved assignments must use the netname(s) approved by the RIPE NCC and not be larger than the approved size. Additionally, the date in the first “changed:” attribute must not be earlier than the date of the approval message from the RIPE NCC. The RIPE NCC reviews assignments made by LIRs when evaluating requests for additional allocations (see 5.3). It also runs consistency checks as part of the auditing activity requested by the community as described in the RIPE document “RIPE NCC Audit Activity” found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/audit.html ==== So as I understand the big question here is if the original criteria on which those assignments are made still are valid by changing registration data and administratively move them to another entity or country. I guess the only people who can answer that question are the NCC hostmasters, please keep in mind this is a RIPE community mailinglist and not the NCC who you are complaining to. Nobody on this mailinglist has access to supporting documents or when they do are bound by NDA so nobody on this list is capable of making sany sane judgement wether this complaint is justified or what the background is for sending the letter about reclaiming space in the first place. So please as a simple request, please take this to where it belongs and contact hostmaster@ripe about this or start a arbitration as described in 174: "Initiation of the Procedure In case of conflicts both parties should document their grievances and communicate them to the other party. They should then try to resolve the conflict between themselves. Only if such resolution has been tried and documented by at least one of the parties can the formal procedure start. The party initiating the procedure will select an arbiter from the pool and provide the arbiter with a written summary of their position in the conflict as well as documentation of their efforts to resolve it. The arbiter shall verify that sufficient attempts at direct resolution have been made. He shall then notify the other party that the resolution procedure has been initiated. The other party will then have two calendar weeks to either accept arbitration by this arbiter or to select one of their own from the pool. If they do not react within this time, the first arbiter can decide to proceed with the single arbiter procedure or to select another arbiter from the pool for the other party and proceed with the three arbiter procedure." Thank you MarcoH
Marco, I'm not comlaining for a certain hostmaster. I'm trying to adjust a policy when one man with their feeling or opinion can't drop down somebody's business. The difference is very big: will you go through arbitration BEFORE or AFTER the blackdown of your network. Marco Hogewoning wrote:
On Oct 21, 2009, at 8:01 PM, Mark Scholten wrote:
Hello Max,
As long as it is Dutch Court I don't see a problem.
If you are against a decision RIPE did make you can go to Dutch Court and ask if they decide to change it.
No you can't...under the standard service agreement which you signed when you became a LIR you signed for the conflict arbitration procedure which is described in RIPE-174.
To comment on the orginal complaint, seems to me you got bitten by RIPE-471, section 6.6:
==== 6.6 Validity of an Assignment All assignments are valid as long as the original criteria on which the assignment was based are still valid and the assignment is properly registered in the RIPE Database. If an assignment is made for a specific purpose and that purpose no longer exists, the assignment is no longer valid. If an assignment is based on information that turns out to be invalid, the assignment is no longer valid.
For these reasons it is important that LIRs make sure that assignments approved by the RIPE NCC are properly registered in the database. The inetnum object or objects for approved assignments must use the netname(s) approved by the RIPE NCC and not be larger than the approved size. Additionally, the date in the first “changed:” attribute must not be earlier than the date of the approval message from the RIPE NCC.
The RIPE NCC reviews assignments made by LIRs when evaluating requests for additional allocations (see 5.3). It also runs consistency checks as part of the auditing activity requested by the community as described in the RIPE document “RIPE NCC Audit Activity” found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/audit.html
====
So as I understand the big question here is if the original criteria on which those assignments are made still are valid by changing registration data and administratively move them to another entity or country.
I guess the only people who can answer that question are the NCC hostmasters, please keep in mind this is a RIPE community mailinglist and not the NCC who you are complaining to. Nobody on this mailinglist has access to supporting documents or when they do are bound by NDA so nobody on this list is capable of making sany sane judgement wether this complaint is justified or what the background is for sending the letter about reclaiming space in the first place.
So please as a simple request, please take this to where it belongs and contact hostmaster@ripe about this or start a arbitration as described in 174:
"Initiation of the Procedure
In case of conflicts both parties should document their grievances and communicate them to the other party. They should then try to resolve the conflict between themselves. Only if such resolution has been tried and documented by at least one of the parties can the formal procedure start. The party initiating the procedure will select an arbiter from the pool and provide the arbiter with a written summary of their position in the conflict as well as documentation of their efforts to resolve it. The arbiter shall verify that sufficient attempts at direct resolution have been made. He shall then notify the other party that the resolution procedure has been initiated. The other party will then have two calendar weeks to either accept arbitration by this arbiter or to select one of their own from the pool. If they do not react within this time, the first arbiter can decide to proceed with the single arbiter procedure or to select another arbiter from the pool for the other party and proceed with the three arbiter procedure."
Thank you
MarcoH
-- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
On Oct 21, 2009, at 8:36 PM, Max Tulyev wrote:
Marco,
I'm not comlaining for a certain hostmaster. I'm trying to adjust a policy when one man with their feeling or opinion can't drop down somebody's business.
The difference is very big: will you go through arbitration BEFORE or AFTER the blackdown of your network.
Well technically there are no ways for the NCC to stop you from using the IP addresses although they will be flagged as bogon in a lot of systems. Secondly, the document you point to (RIPE-475) has some clear guidelines in 4.2.1, which gives you 30 days to respond and resolve any issues. Now either your contact details are out of date and you missed an email, but you should still have a couple of weeks at least. In respect to your orginal comments, the full article here states:
"The RIPE NCC will de-register the independent Internet number resources in case of a fundamental breach of contract by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or Violation of Law by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or violation of RIPE Policy by the End User."
No where there is any mention it is a one man job to decide wether there is a violation, it says 'RIPE NCC' which is a legal entity, who in it's turn has a bunch of people on the payroll to check wether allocation and assignment policies are followed. Now obviously it can be the case that one IPRA on it's own decides the assignment is no longer valid accoording to RIPE-471 but my guess is that in case of any doubt things are double checked before the axe is raised and if they do so, you should have some time to respond, ask them to explain what happened and possibly talk to another hostmaster. If this all fails you have the arbitration procedure. As far as AP is concerned I don't see how we can help, you have a conflict with the NCC not with the community. This has no relation with assignment and allocation guidelines, they are all there and pretty clear. They are also very clear what happens if you don't confirm to the policy and which enitity makes that decission, it's the RIPE NCC a group of people who are in a seperate legal enitity and who are controlled by and finally paid for by the members. Your position to ask for and I quote "...OUR COMMUNITY COURT-LIKE STRUCTURE" is there, it's called RIPE-174. MarcoH
Nobody on this mailinglist has access to supporting documents or when they do are bound by NDA so nobody on this list is capable of making sany sane judgement
It would be interesting to see a copy of the letter that was sent to Max.
So please as a simple request, please take this to where it belongs and contact hostmaster@ripe about this or start a arbitration as described in 174:
Was that mentioned in the letter? If not, it should be. Lots of companies offshore work including us. However, even if the work is being done in India by people with email addresses from an Indian company, all of our networks are still owned and operated by BT. We don't outsource core assets, and I doubt that anyone else does. Hostmasters who see something that looks like a transfer of number resources should assume that it is really just outsourcing of work, and make inquiries to confirm the status of the number resources. In fact, its about time we get rid of that horrid name. The people are not masters of anything or anyone, and the work that they do has nothing to do with hosts. They handle member relations and we should have a name for them that reflects that. --Michael Dillon
In fact, its about time we get rid of that horrid name. The people are not masters of anything or anyone, and the work that they do has nothing to do with hosts. They handle member relations and we should have a name for them that reflects that.
The official name has been IP resource analyst or IPRA in short for ages now. Marco
The official name has been IP resource analyst or IPRA in short for ages now.
Then why do they still use hostmaster@ripe.net ? Why don't documents say: Send an email to the IP Resource Analysts at enquiries@ripe.net and: Send the template to the automated request system at requests@ripe.net Let's just stamp out this antiquated meaningless word from all RIPE documents. --Michael Dillon
On 22 Oct 2009, at 22:23, <michael.dillon@bt.com> wrote:
Hostmasters who see something that looks like a transfer of number resources should assume that it is really just outsourcing of work
Er, no. They should not do that. Or make any sorts of assumptions about an LIR's business. It may well be that inside BT transfers of number resources tend to be accompanied by some sort of outsourcing arrangement. I doubt that will always be the case. Even if this was always true for every BT transfer, that doesn't mean it'll be true for any other LIR. And it would not be wise for RIPE to have LIR-specific policies or actions whenever an LIR is shuffling number resources around its organisation.
and make inquiries to confirm the status of the number resources.
Yes. Which is what they should be doing anyway whenever an LIR's number resources are moved around.
Hello Mark, I'm not against RIPE decision now, I'm against drop down ten businesses down just because one man thought that "it seems" something for him. Each such business-critical case should be pedantic investigated by a group of authoritative people, if not a court. No way any "it seems..."! While Dutch Court process a case (it is not a hours or days, much more I think) clients will went away, isn't it? Mark Scholten wrote:
Hello Max,
As long as it is Dutch Court I don't see a problem.
If you are against a decision RIPE did make you can go to Dutch Court and ask if they decide to change it.
With kind regards,
Mark Scholten
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Max Tulyev Sent: woensdag 21 oktober 2009 18:42 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] RIPE staff vs Court
Hello!
Today I just got a strange letter from RIPE staff. I didn't saw anything like that before. They told me about a ten of networks registered through our LIR. All these networks have changed admin-c and tech-c to other country, and routed through one server on that country.
Based on this, RIPE man sent the notification about reclamation of that networks, as "that seems to don't be valid anymore."
Of course, I immediately contacted my client and asked what's happened. He said they work as usual, but one certain offshore IT company is used to manage their networks. So they changed contact details to that company, as that company is correct contact point in any network questions. And traffic flows through the offshore company site as they manage and control it, hosts data, etc.
From one point of view, situation seems very strange. From second - nothing to be not real in practice. So we (first time?) faced with IP reclamation dispute. I don't really know did our clients something bad - perhaps no, as none from these nets listed at Spamhouse ;). I think it is 50/50. May be they told me (and RIPE) truth, may be lied. I can't 100% check it by tools/rights/possibilities I have.
But about ten of businesses are on decision of one person that "seems to ...".
My strong position is THERE SHOULD BE A COURT DECISION OR OUR COMMUNITY COURT-LIKE STRUCTURE, and only that structure based on court-like controversy process (if not a real court) can make a decision about reclaim any address space. NO WAYS LIKE "IT SEEMS TO...".
So now we have: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html#42 My proposal is to change: "Violation of Law by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or violation of RIPE Policy by the End User" to "Violation of Law by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or violation of RIPE Policy by the End User, SUPPORTED BY..."
By what? By Dutch Court? By some independent court-like staff? Any ideas?
-- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
On Oct 21, 2009, at 8:21 PM, Max Tulyev wrote:
Hello Mark,
I'm not against RIPE decision now, I'm against drop down ten businesses down just because one man thought that "it seems" something for him.
Each such business-critical case should be pedantic investigated by a group of authoritative people, if not a court. No way any "it seems..."!
While Dutch Court process a case (it is not a hours or days, much more I think) clients will went away, isn't it?
Well depends, let's assume you find yourself a lawyer and go to court: - judge points you back to arbitration in 5 minutes - judge decides other wise: - reclaims the addresses This simply creates the big and feared red button all those film and record companies are hoping for, any case of copyright infringment within the RIPE region has a real good chance of ending up in Dutch court to reclaim the IPs. Wether this actually will stop routing is not important, it's because they can. - he dedcides you can keep the addresses. Oh great, if a request is turned down by a hostmaster I can now go to court and fight over that last /8. Now there is a fair chance that both decissions are appealed for and then again and again, which will take years and years and wil bring significant cost to the NCC, which in the end has to be paid by the members, that's you, me and approx 6000 others. It will be a strange situation that while you fight them, technically you pay the lawyers on both sides :) In the meantime what that judge in his internal wisdom has done, is proclaim himself to boss of the internet, IANA can go and further assigments are done by the joined Dutch judges in which case I think the Dutch government has someting to explain to the rest of the world. And yes I have been in court cases about IP addresses and yes you can forget about a judge actually understanding the mechanisms at work and make a sensible judgement inline with what was internationally agreed on. Taking this to court will make everybody cry, one way or another there is a fair chance we will end with nothing but loosers and a huge bill to pay. I can understand you are pissed off, I would be too if I recieved such a letter. Let it cool down for a bit, count to ten and tomorrow try and contact a hostmaster or IPRA as they are called these days to explain what happened here and see if you can work out how to correct this following the regular processes. If this fails please try arbitration first before going to court, the procedure is there and is very clear and you save the community from a hell of a headache and the membership from a huge bill. MarcoH
If you are against a decision RIPE did make you can go to Dutch Court and ask if they decide to change it.
It's better for RIPE to not make dumb decisions so that nobody has to go to court. If reclamation is going to happen, it has to follow some kind of notification process with an appeal period. --Michael Dillon
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:42 UTC Max Tulyev <president@ukraine.su> wrote:
I don't really know did our clients something bad - perhaps no, as none from these nets listed at Spamhouse ;).
Whether the clients did "something bad" isn't really relevant here. What is relevant is whether the clients you say you now have, really are the same people to whom the original IP/ASN allocations were made. What can you tell us about these clients?
Of course, I immediately contacted my client
Ah, now it's just ONE client? But these ten networks were all (originally) registered to ten different organisations, yes? From: "6.6 Validity of an Assignment" "If an assignment is made for a specific purpose and that purpose no longer exists, the assignment is no longer valid. If an assignment is based on information that turns out to be invalid, the assignment is no longer valid."
and asked what's happened. He said they work as usual, but one certain offshore IT company is used to manage their networks.
I'm sure people here would rapidly understand the real situation if you were to explain which (and where) that "offshore IT company" was, and who is actually running it. -- Richard Cox Co-Chair, Anti-Abuse Working Group but writing in a personal capacity ...
participants (6)
-
Jim Reid -
Marco Hogewoning -
Mark Scholten -
Max Tulyev -
michael.dillon＠bt.com -
Richard Cox