Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 Conflict of Interests
Hello, One people named WW circulated the following info privately to a large group of people in ripe region. can you swear that there was no conflict of interests ? compared with the FIFA corruption and collapse, how about we involves the investigation by FBI or Gov authority? maybe only through this way, the truth can be disclosed to the PUBLIC. Elvis, who used to work in RIPE from Nov, 2007 to May 2013, has conspired with his countryman and allocated plenty of RIPE IPv4 blocks to their own registered shell companies without employees. Elvis established its brokerage company as soon as he resigned from RIPE and has sold out IPv4 blocks that he had reserved into his “own account” ( one of the sale was to Saudi Telecommunication and the sale price is around 7US). This is not just an ethics problem here and he is committing the CRIME! Ironically, it will so easy to become rich almost in one night by doing what Elvis has done. How can RIPE just turn a blind eye on his committed Crime ? Elvis has taken the advantage of his role as the IPRA ( he knows better about what IP values and the policy loopholes than the others ) and purposely allocated plenty of IPv4 blocks to his own shell for the speculation. Congrats to Elvis, he has succeeded in becoming a millionaire by committing crime! Shame on those who do nothing to stop the crime. Cobalt IT (Evolva) same position like Elvis.. at same company.. See the evidences including ( company registration info, resources, linkedin profiles etc) in the attachment. On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 10:56 PM, address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net wrote:
Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to address-policy-wg@ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net)
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net)
You can reach the person managing the list at address-policy-wg-owner@ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg-owner@ripe.net)
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: RIPE != RIPE NCC (Nick Hilliard) 2. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) (Elvis Daniel Velea) 3. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) (Silvia Hagen) 4. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) (Hannigan, Martin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:03:03 +0100 From: Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie (mailto:nick@inex.ie)> To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com (mailto:randy@psg.com)>, Sascha Luck <apwg@c4inet.net (mailto:apwg@c4inet.net)> Cc: RIPE address policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net)> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC Message-ID: <55784397.1050704@inex.ie (mailto:55784397.1050704@inex.ie)> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
On 10/06/2015 14:03, Randy Bush wrote:
what is missing here is that, if only LIRs decided policy, a few thousand folk (likely 10 people on a mailing list), would decide policy affecting millions internet users.
~980m.
Nick
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:16:19 +0300 From: Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@velea.eu (mailto:elvis@velea.eu)> To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net) Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) Message-ID: <557846B3.1010009@velea.eu (mailto:557846B3.1010009@velea.eu)> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Hi Ciprian,
so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake.
Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below.
Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me...
On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote:
Hi,
[...]
Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making accusation without any support evidence.
"He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. "
And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision about our allocation.
You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene but that should also bring some questions.
You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions.
What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu.
Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012.
[...]
Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past.
I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the requests).
Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC.
and before that you said:
It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal.
only to then say:
Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here.
You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval.
I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none.
I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. Again, this was totally unexpected from you.
Ciprian
/elvis
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:31 +0000 From: Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen@sunny.ch (mailto:silvia.hagen@sunny.ch)> To: "elvis@velea.eu (mailto:elvis@velea.eu)" <elvis@velea.eu (mailto:elvis@velea.eu)>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net)" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net)> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) Message-ID: <F1D4404E5E6C614EB9D3083F4D15A7E7C84FB0@hex02> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment
Silvia
-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net) Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time)
Hi Ciprian,
so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake.
Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below.
Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me...
On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote:
Hi,
[...]
Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making accusation without any support evidence.
"He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. "
And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision about our allocation.
You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene but that should also bring some questions.
You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions.
What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu.
Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012.
[...]
Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past.
I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the requests).
Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC.
and before that you said:
It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal.
only to then say:
Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here.
You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval.
I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none.
I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. Again, this was totally unexpected from you.
Ciprian
/elvis
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:56:16 +0000 From: "Hannigan, Martin" <marty@akamai.com (mailto:marty@akamai.com)> To: Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen@sunny.ch (mailto:silvia.hagen@sunny.ch)> Cc: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net)" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net)> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) Message-ID: <E0A86D2C-902D-43DE-8754-42CF14983ED7@akamai.com (mailto:E0A86D2C-902D-43DE-8754-42CF14983ED7@akamai.com)> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
It would be great if the combatants can move the theatre of warfare operations to their personal mailboxes.
Best,
-M<
On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen@sunny.ch (mailto:silvia.hagen@sunny.ch)> wrote:
This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment
Silvia
-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net) Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time)
Hi Ciprian,
so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake.
Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below.
Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me...
On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote:
Hi,
[...]
Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making accusation without any support evidence.
"He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. "
And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision about our allocation.
You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene but that should also bring some questions.
You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions.
What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu.
Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012.
[...]
Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past.
I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the requests).
Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC.
and before that you said:
It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal.
only to then say:
Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here.
You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval.
I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none.
I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. Again, this was totally unexpected from you.
Ciprian
/elvis
End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 *************************************************
Dear Ciprian, These is are false accusations and I please ask you to stop attacking me personally. As I said, if you or someone else have questions about my activity at RIPE NCC, you should contact me personally or the RIPE NCC directly. I understand that my policy proposal can upset you and other people. My intention is not to propose a policy that will affect your business but to propose something that will benefit the entire community. I also understand that we are competitors in the IP Broker space but in this mailing list I am simply talking as a member of the RIPE community. I believe that defaming competition is not a good practice and this is definitely not the place. Again, I apologize if my policy proposal upsets you and other people and I can assure you that my intention is to propose something that will benefit all of us (the RIPE Community) in the long term. Thank you, Elvis PS: Gert, I know I promised yesterday I will no longer reply back to attacks, but I had to reply to this one and ask Ciprian (one more time) to stop. Can you also do something about it? On 11/06/15 06:43, Callum Stuart wrote:
Hello,
One people named WW circulated the following info privately to a large group of people in ripe region.
can you swear that there was no conflict of interests ? compared with the FIFA corruption and collapse, how about we involves the investigation by FBI or Gov authority? maybe only through this way, the truth can be disclosed to the PUBLIC.
/Elvis, who used to work in RIPE from Nov, 2007 to May 2013, has conspired with his countryman and allocated plenty of RIPE IPv4 blocks to their own registered shell companies without employees. /
/Elvis established its brokerage company as soon as he resigned from RIPE and has sold out IPv4 blocks that he had reserved into his “own account” ( one of the sale was to Saudi Telecommunication and the sale price is around 7US). This is not just an ethics problem here and he is committing the CRIME! Ironically, it will so easy to become rich almost in one night by doing what Elvis has done. How can RIPE just turn a blind eye on his committed Crime ?/
/ /
/Elvis has taken the advantage of his role as the IPRA ( he knows better about what IP values and the policy loopholes than the others ) and purposely allocated plenty of IPv4 blocks to his own shell for the speculation. /
/ /
/Congrats to Elvis, he has succeeded in becoming a millionaire by committing crime! Shame on those who do nothing to stop the crime. /
/ /
/Cobalt IT (Evolva) same position like Elvis.. at same company.. /
/ /
/ /
/See the evidences including ( company registration info, resources, linkedin profiles etc) in the attachment. /
On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 10:56 PM, address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net wrote:
Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net>
You can reach the person managing the list at address-policy-wg-owner@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg-owner@ripe.net>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: RIPE != RIPE NCC (Nick Hilliard) 2. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) (Elvis Daniel Velea) 3. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) (Silvia Hagen) 4. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) (Hannigan, Martin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:03:03 +0100 From: Nick Hilliard <nick@inex.ie <mailto:nick@inex.ie>> To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com <mailto:randy@psg.com>>, Sascha Luck <apwg@c4inet.net <mailto:apwg@c4inet.net>> Cc: RIPE address policy WG <address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC Message-ID: <55784397.1050704@inex.ie <mailto:55784397.1050704@inex.ie>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
On 10/06/2015 14:03, Randy Bush wrote:
what is missing here is that, if only LIRs decided policy, a few thousand folk (likely 10 people on a mailing list), would decide policy affecting millions internet users.
~980m.
Nick
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:16:19 +0300 From: Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@velea.eu <mailto:elvis@velea.eu>> To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) Message-ID: <557846B3.1010009@velea.eu <mailto:557846B3.1010009@velea.eu>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Hi Ciprian,
so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake.
Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below.
Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me...
Hi, [...]
Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making accusation without any support evidence.
"He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. "
And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision about our allocation. You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene but that should also bring some questions. You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression
On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions.
What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu.
Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012.
[...]
Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the requests).
Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC.
and before that you said:
It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal.
only to then say:
Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here.
You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval.
I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none.
I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. Again, this was totally unexpected from you.
Ciprian
/elvis
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:31 +0000 From: Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen@sunny.ch <mailto:silvia.hagen@sunny.ch>> To: "elvis@velea.eu <mailto:elvis@velea.eu>" <elvis@velea.eu <mailto:elvis@velea.eu>>, "address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) Message-ID: <F1D4404E5E6C614EB9D3083F4D15A7E7C84FB0@hex02> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment
Silvia
-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time)
Hi Ciprian,
so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake.
Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below.
Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me...
Hi, [...]
Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making accusation without any support evidence.
"He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. "
And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision about our allocation. You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene but that should also bring some questions. You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression
On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions.
What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu.
Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012.
[...]
Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the requests).
Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC.
and before that you said:
It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal.
only to then say:
Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here.
You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval.
I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none.
I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. Again, this was totally unexpected from you.
Ciprian
/elvis
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:56:16 +0000 From: "Hannigan, Martin" <marty@akamai.com <mailto:marty@akamai.com>> To: Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen@sunny.ch <mailto:silvia.hagen@sunny.ch>> Cc: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) Message-ID: <E0A86D2C-902D-43DE-8754-42CF14983ED7@akamai.com <mailto:E0A86D2C-902D-43DE-8754-42CF14983ED7@akamai.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
It would be great if the combatants can move the theatre of warfare operations to their personal mailboxes.
Best,
-M<
On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen@sunny.ch <mailto:silvia.hagen@sunny.ch>> wrote:
This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment
Silvia
-----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time)
Hi Ciprian,
so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake.
Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below.
Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me...
Hi, [...]
Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making accusation without any support evidence.
"He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved this last-second allocation. "
And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision about our allocation. You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene but that should also bring some questions. You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this
On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions.
What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu.
Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012.
[...]
Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the requests).
Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC.
and before that you said:
It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal.
only to then say:
Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here.
You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval.
I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none.
I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. Again, this was totally unexpected from you.
Ciprian
/elvis
End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 *************************************************
Hi, On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:24:27AM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
PS: Gert, I know I promised yesterday I will no longer reply back to attacks, but I had to reply to this one and ask Ciprian (one more time) to stop. Can you also do something about it?
As a matter of last resort, we might turn on moderation for the APWG list. I'm not really happy to even consider that, as it would hurt transparency and the flow of discussion ("if neither chair is around, things come to a stop", and "what are the criteria to block or pass a mail? will the chairs use this to influence the outcome of a discussion?") - but if this is not stopping RIGHT NOW, we'll have to. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
* Gert Doering <gert@space.net> [2015-06-11 10:36]:
PS: Gert, I know I promised yesterday I will no longer reply back to attacks, but I had to reply to this one and ask Ciprian (one more time) to stop. Can you also do something about it?
As a matter of last resort, we might turn on moderation for the APWG list.
I'm not really happy to even consider that, as it would hurt transparency and the flow of discussion ("if neither chair is around, things come to a stop", and "what are the criteria to block or pass a mail? will the chairs use this to influence the outcome of a discussion?") - but if this is not stopping RIGHT NOW, we'll have to.
I find these attacks appaling. I feel sorry for Elvis who did us a favor by drafting this proposal and who only got flak from people wo didn't care about APWG as long as it didn't interfer with them making money by abusing the system. FWIW, consider blocking/moderating the individual persons before moderating the list. At the moment it might be managable that way. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
Hi, On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:43:37AM +0800, Callum Stuart wrote:
One people named WW circulated the following info privately to a large group of people in ripe region.
If this was circulated *privately*, leaking it to the public is a gross violation of nettiquette. [..]
Elvis, who used to work in RIPE from Nov, 2007 to May 2013, has conspired with his countryman and allocated plenty of RIPE IPv4 blocks to their own registered shell companies without employees.
Stop these personal attacks RIGHT NOW. There is no evidence to back this, so don't go around attacking members of the community in good standing in public. You might not *like* the brokerage business (which is a perfectly viable personal opinion - I think it's important to ensure that buyers and sellers can have a mutual point of trust, who ensures the transaction is done without either side cheating) - but that does not imply that the personal integrity of Elvis is under any sort of doubt here. If you think something criminal has been done, and can prove it, involve NCC management. But this DOES NOT belong on the AP list. (And it's a very cheap shot to try to stop the proposal by attacking the proposer - it won't achieve that, as the proposer is no longer involved at this point anyway. It's a matter of the chairs and PDO now.) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
participants (4)
-
Callum Stuart -
Elvis Daniel Velea -
Gert Doering -
Sebastian Wiesinger