- ncc-services-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Voluntary Transfer Lock
by Volodymyr Kuzmin 01 Jun '23

01 Jun '23

+1, I support this

1 0

2023-03 Voluntary Transfer Lock
by Igor Tarasenko 01 Jun '23

01 Jun '23

Hello! I also support this proposal and policy development. Best Regards, Igor Tarasenko

1 0

Status on 2023-03
by Kurt Erik Lindqvist 30 May '23

30 May '23

TL;DR Discussion phase for 2023-03 has been extended to 2nd June, please discuss this proposal on this list. All, We want to clarify the status of 2023-03 and what the chairs have proposed. During the four week discussion phase of 2023-03 we reminded the WG several times about this proposal and by the end of the discussion phase, no feedback or comments had been received. The PDP states that "At the end of the Discussion Phase, depending on the feedback received, the proposer decides whether the proposal should be withdrawn from the RIPE PDP or, with the agreement of the WG chair, it can move to the next phase (Review Phase). This should be done no more than four weeks after the end of the Discussion Phase. " The chairs discussed what to do as there had been no feedback on the proposal, and reached out to the proposers and offered to extend the discussion phase. The proposers sent an email to the WG mailing list which generated supportive comments as well as alternative suggestions including that this proposal should not have run through the policy process but rather been actioned by the RIPE NCC directly. We as chairs asked RIPE NCC's legal counsel to comment on the option of not doing this through the policy process, and Athina posted the reply on May 4th. This outlines that the RIPE NCC believes there is a legal risk in the RIPE NCC entering into an agreement without support or in contradiction to RIPE policy. We have discussed with the AP WG chairs if this policy should be discussed in AP or NCC Services and have agreed that it will continue to be discussed in NCC SErvices. We as chairs believe based on earlier discussions that this is a proposal that the WG has interest in but moving proposals forward without any support is problematic, and given the concerns from the RIPE NCC legal counsel on the legal risks around entering agreements against RIPE Policy, we also do not want to undermine the proposal by side-stepping the PDP. To resolve this, the chairs offered to the proposers to extend the discussion phase until after RIPE86 and that we and the proposers would work to get a discussion going. With this email we therefor extend the discussion phase until June 2nd. Please provide thoughts comments, support and feedback on the proposal! RIPE NCC Services WG Chairs, Kurtis, Bijal, Rob

3 3

2023-03 Voluntary Transfer Lock
by Leo Vegoda 29 May '23

29 May '23

Hi, I support this proposal. I previously questioned whether this should be a policy or just a service implementation. I now understand why it needs to be a policy (thanks, Athina!). Kind regards, Leo

4 3

Re: [ncc-services-wg] Update of RIPE NCC Procedural Document and Transfer Agreement Template
by Max Tulyev 21 May '23

21 May '23

On Sat, 20 May 2023 11:43:19 +0200 Олена Кушнір <kea(a)webpro.net.ua> wrote: > Good day, All/Max > There is no need for fairy tales about 5 thousand euros for a court decision. That is not a fairy tale, I said also "or just for free, if you have enough political resource", like in your master's case. > I am categorically against this proposal 2.2, because in this case, those from whom the IP resources were stolen will NEVER GET THEM BACK. And what then is justice? But yes, you are right. In the case resource was stealed, it should be returned back to the legal owner. The question is how to figure out it was stealed and it is not a seller's fraud. Any ideas? -- Max Tulyev <maxtul(a)netassist.ua>

2 2

2023-03 Voluntary Transfer Lock
by Peter Hessler 20 May '23

20 May '23

I support 2023-03 Voluntary Transfer Lock. This is a good option for all members to have available. Since it is voluntary, and has the same authority requirements as transfers, I feel there is minimal risk that this will be inappropriately used. I also feel that we should _not_ unduely delay acceptance of this policy, even if we wish to propose another policy on this topic. Crucially, the very first sentence of: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/tra… gives us all of the authority needed: """All resource holders in the RIPE NCC region can transfer resources in accordance with RIPE policies.""" Furthermore, I disagree with Denis that there is a conflict between policies. This policy is clearly intended to carve out an exception, and it is very specific in describing how. -peter -- There are no data that cannot be plotted on a straight line if the axis are chosen correctly.

2 1

Update of RIPE NCC Procedural Document and Transfer Agreement Template
by Kevin Brennan 19 May '23

19 May '23

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC Procedural document 'Closure of Members, Deregistration of Internet Resources and Legacy Resources' has been reviewed and updated. The following is an overview of the amendments made. Section A.1.2.1 (c) Incorrect registration in the RIPE Database was amended through the deletion of the following wording: “The inetnum and the inet6num object(s) for approved assignments must use the netname(s) approved by the RIPE NCC and not be larger than the size approved by the RIPE NCC” The reason for this change is that the RIPE NCC no longer approves assignments or netnames in this regard. Deletion of this wording under the abovementioned section therefore aligns current practices with the procedure outlined in ‘Closure of Members, Deregistration of Internet Resources and Legacy Resources’. Section B 1. (c) Deregistration of Internet Number Resources was amended for the same reason, with the same wording being deleted under this section as outlined above. Section B.1. (b) Deregistration of Internet Number Resources was further amended in order to correctly reflect current RIPE policy with regards to the needs-based approach for RIPE NCC-assigned resources. Resources are no longer allocated for a specific need. However, the RIPE NCC may assign resources to members/End Users for a specific need. Slight changes were made to the wording under this section to remove reference to historical RIPE policy provisions and to align it with current RIPE policy. Secondly, the RIPE NCC Transfer Agreement Template has been reviewed and updated. The following articles have been added: “2.1 The terms and conditions of this Transfer Agreement do not violate any existing laws applicable to the Offering Party or to the Receiving Party. 2.2 In the event that this Transfer Agreement is nullified or deemed invalid due to violation of laws described in Article 2.1, the transfer of registration of Internet Number Resources shall be reverted and the Internet Number Resources shall be returned to the Offering Party”. In light of a request for transfer of Internet Number Resources, the RIPE NCC was made aware of a law prohibitingcertain transactions between Ukrainian and Russian entities. Considering that different national laws might be applicable to the parties signing a transfer agreement, these articles were added in order for the RIPE NCC to have the parties’ confirmation that the Transfer Agreement does not violate any of the laws applicable to them, and their agreement that, in the event that the Transfer Agreement is nullified or deemed invalid due to violation of such laws, the transfer will be reverted and the Internet Number Resources will be returned to the Offering Party. Members are advised to use the updated Transfer Agreement template (v6.0) from the date of this announcement onwards. You can find the updated documents at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-798 https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/tra… Kind regards, Kevin Brennan Legal Counsel RIPE NCC

2 1

NCC Services WG Draft Agenda - RIPE88
by Bijal Sanghani 19 May '23

19 May '23

Dear all, Below and shortly online you can find the NCC Services working group draft agenda, any additions or comments welcome. Kind regards, NCC Services working group chairs === Date: Wednesday 24 May 2023 Time: 14:30 - 16:00 CEST Chair: Kurtis Lindqvist Co-Chair: Rob Evans, Bijal Sanghani A. Administrative Matters (5 minutes) Welcome Select a scribe Finalise agenda Approve minutes from RIPE 85 - https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/services/minutes/ripe-85 <https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/services/minutes/ripe-85> B. RIPE NCC Past and Future Hans Petter Holen, RIPE NCC (20 mins) C. Registry and Technology Update Felipe Victolla Silveira, RIPE NCC (20 mins) D. RIPE NCC Survey 2023 Fergal Cunningham, RIPE NCC (10 mins) E. 2023-03 Voluntary Transfer Lock - Next steps Angela Dall’Ara, RIPE NCC (10 mins) F. Board as a service Christian Kaufmann (15 minutes) G. Open Microphone Session Kurtis Lindqvist, WG Chair (5 minutes) Z. Any other business Kurtis Lindqvist, WG Chair (5 minutes)

1 1

Dutch Authorities Confirm Internet Number Resources Fall Within Sanctions Exemption
by Athina Fragkouli 17 May '23

17 May '23

Dear colleagues, Last week, we received confirmation from the Dutch authorities on a matter regarding the EU sanctions related to freezing or not making available economic resources to listed entities in Russia. They confirmed that Internet number resources fall within an exemption that was introduced in 2022, which excludes resources that are “strictly necessary for the provision of electronic communication services”. We are currently discussing internally the operational consequences of this confirmation and we will share more information once we are clear on how we will implement this. Background: As an association under Dutch law, the RIPE NCC is in principle subject to Dutch and EU legislation, and the Dutch authorities are responsible for their enforcement. In general, EU sanctions regulations relate to: Prohibiting specific products and services from being provided in a specific country. RIPE NCC services are not included in these regulations. Financial restrictions, which consist of: Freezing of funds and economic resources belonging to designated persons and entities; and A prohibition on making funds and economic resources available to such persons and entities. While country-based sanctions are not relevant to us, the financial restrictions (2.) are. This is because the registration of Internet number resources is considered an economic resource. Accordingly, we are prohibited from making new Internet number resources available to any sanctioned persons or entities. We are also required to freeze any resources they already have. The EU exemption: As part of its sixth package of Russian sanctions, the EU regulations introduced an exemption to the above mentioned financial restrictions. The exemption reads: “[Financial restrictions] shall not apply to funds or economic resources that are strictly necessary for the provision of electronic communication services by Union telecommunication operators, for the provision of associated facilities and services necessary for the operation, maintenance and security of such electronic communication services, in Russia, in Ukraine, in the Union, between Russia and the Union, and between Ukraine and the Union, and for data center services in the Union.” Clarification by the Dutch authorities: Following the introduction of this exemption in the EU regulation about Russian sanctions, the RIPE NCC requested clarification from the Dutch authorities on whether this exemption applies to Internet number resources. Last week we received an official confirmation from the Dutch authorities that the exemption applies indeed to Internet number resources. Operational consequences: We are now reviewing the operational consequences of this exemption and the relevant amendments that will be required to our current procedure. We will share more information about this once our review is finalised. Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Chief Legal Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2023-03 status problem
by Sander Steffann 16 May '23

16 May '23

Hello working group, As the authors were in a bit of a difficult position. The chairs won't move this policy proposal forward as there was no feedback during the discussion phase. We were under the impression that the chairs had extended the deadline of the phase as we did talk about that, but it didn’t actually happen. When I sent my reminder the discussion phase was therefore already over, so all the support and feedback we got then Doesn’t Count™. They have indicated that they will only reopen the discussion phase if they know that there actually will be engagement for this to be meaningful. So, can the people who are interested in this proposal please pinky swear that they will contribute if it does get another discussion phase? ;) You may have to repeat your feedback in the proper phase of the PDP to be counted. This approach is less pragmatic than I would have chose when I was a chair, but this is not my working group :) And the chairs are right that the reason for this being a policy proposal is that the NCC (legal) team wants formal community support, so I can see why they are following the process to the letter. So let’s do this formally right. PS: Denis, thank you for your contribution! We’re going to ask the RIPE NCC to comment on the interaction between the policies, and whether a separate policy like this one (with maybe a cleanup of the text in Address Policy) is preferred to integrating this in the transfer policy or not. Considering that the RIPE NCC gave us a hard deadline to get this policy in place, I’m hesitant to restart the whole process this late. Cheers! Sander --- for every complex problem, there’s a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong

8 10