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

WG Chair selection 2023
by Kurtis Lindqvist 28 Sep '23

28 Sep '23

Dear WG members, At the upcoming RIPE meeting there is again a WG selection process for one of the three WG chairs of NCC Services. It is my seat that is up for selection this time. I have been WG Chair of NCC Services since the WG was created at RIPE46 in 2003 and I am not planning on re-standing. The process for the WG chair selection is outlined at https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/active-wg/services and states RIPE NCC Services Working Group Chair Selection Process The RIPE NCC Services Working Group shall have at least two working group chairs and a maximum of three. The RIPE NCC Services WG Chairs are selected for a two-year period, and one of the chairs will stand down every year. The chair not standing down shall make a call for interested parties on the RIPE NCC Services WG mailing list. Interested parties then have a two-week period to make their interest known. After this, the chair(s) not up for selection will issue a two-week discussion period where the RIPE NCC Services WG community can express approval or otherwise for the candidates that have expressed interest. At the end of the two-week discussion period the chair(s) not up for selection will call consensus for the candidate(s). Appeals will follow the normal WG chair appeal process from the RIPE PDP. When we come to November 1st, Rob and Bijal will per the WG Chair selection process start the formal call for interested parties but I wanted to nudge the discussion to start so that interested candidates can think about standing and be ready for the formal call, as well as make my own intention clear. Best regards, - kurtis -

2 1

Process Review: Free RIPE Meeting Tickets for RIPE NCC Members
by hmi＠ripe.net 27 Sep '23

27 Sep '23

Dear members, We are reviewing the processes around issuing free RIPE Meeting tickets. This is part of our efforts to be more efficient and transparent about our processes. We also want to introduce cost savings where we can without compromising the quality of our events. From 24 July 2023 onwards: - All new members will be entitled to make use of two free RIPE Meeting tickets. - All free tickets will be issued per RIPE NCC member rather than per LIR account. - The validity of the free tickets is two years from the activation date of the membership. - Those eligible to receive tickets will be emailed once registration for the RIPE Meeting opens. - The RIPE NCC will honour any previous commitments for those eligible for free RIPE Meeting tickets prior to the date of this communication. If you have questions about your eligibility for free tickets, please contact <meeting(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Hisham Ibrahim Chief Community Officer RIPE NCC

1 1

2023-03 Last Call for Comments (Voluntary Transfer Lock)
by Angela Dall'Ara 21 Sep '23

21 Sep '23

Dear colleagues, Proposal 2023-03, "Voluntary Transfer Lock" is now in Concluding Phase. The goal of this proposal is to allow resource holders whose resources are registered with the RIPE NCC to inform them which of these resources must not be transferred for a certain amount of time. The WG co-chairs have declared that rough consensus has been reached and the proposal will now move to Last Call. As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Concluding Phase is to give an opportunity to present well-justified objections for those who missed the previous two phases and wish to oppose the proposal. Any objection must be made before 20 October 2023 and must be supported by an explanation. If no substantive objections are raised by the end of Last Call, the proposal will complete the PDP and will be evaluated by the WG co-chairs for final consensus. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-03 Please e-mail any final comments about this proposal to ncc-services-wg(a)ripe.net before 20 October 2023. Kind regards, Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2023-03 Voluntary Transfer Lock moving to Concluding Phase (Last Call)
by Rob Evans 21 Sep '23

21 Sep '23

Dear all, The Review Phase for 2023-03 finished three weeks ago. Whilst it was open, support for the proposal was expressed by ~12 people and nobody opposed it. There were some questions about what court orders would be valid, and the RIPE NCC’s Legal Counsel replied to those. With that in mind, the WG Co-Chairs believe we have now reached consensus and are moving the proposal to the Concluding Phase and issuing a last call for comments. <https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-03> If you object to the proposal, please state that, along with the justification for the objection, on the list before the end of 19th October 2023. Many thanks, Rob, Bijal, Kurtis

1 0

Final Cloud Strategy Published
by Felipe Victolla Silveira 13 Sep '23

13 Sep '23

Dear colleagues, We have now published the final version of our cloud strategy, which was approved by our Executive Board at its last meeting in September. You can find this on RIPE Labs here: https://labs.ripe.net/author/felipe_victolla_silveira/ripe-ncc-cloud-strate… <https://labs.ripe.net/author/felipe_victolla_silveira/ripe-ncc-cloud-strate…> Those of you who read our earlier draft won't find any surprises in the document. Apart from making it more concise, the only change is that the use of containers is now allowed under the strict interpretation of our 'Avoid vendor lock-in' requirement (this is noted in the table). The final part is to agree on the criticality of specific services with the community. We will give you an update on this at RIPE 83. Regards Felipe Victolla Silveira Chief Operations Officer RIPE NCC

2 2

Re: [ncc-services-wg] Voluntary Transfer Lock V2
by Максим Смелянец 08 Sep '23

08 Sep '23

Dear Athina, Thank you very much for your reply and clarification. I`d like to draw your attention to what is specifically stated in the Impact Analysis “The RIPE NCC might also not be able to enforce the Lock if it is against any applicable laws or regulations”. That is, we are talking about legislation that can limit the holders rights to block. You write about due diligence procedures, according to which you can accept the documents of providers located in the occupied territories. But questions was specifically about the Impact Analysis for the Voluntary Transfer Lock Policy. When it comes to the specific legislation that can limit voluntary blocking, and as the Impact Analysis states, we can get situation that an ISP in the occupied territory cannot protect its resources because the law of the occupied territory forbids it from doing so. Then it can be concluded that the due diligence procedures completely undermine the purpose of the policy. That is why I am asking you to clarify again this part of the Impact Analysis «The RIPE NCC might also not be able to enforce the Lock if it is against any applicable laws or regulations». Best regards and nice day, Maxim Smelyanets.

1 0

Re: [ncc-services-wg] Voluntary Transfer Lock V2
by Athina Fragkouli 05 Sep '23

05 Sep '23

Dear Maxim, all, Thank you for your email. As a membership association legally-based in the Netherlands, the RIPE NCC will only comply with court orders or other legally-enforceable orders under Dutch law. The RIPE NCC is in principle subject to Dutch and EU legislation. When we receive a request from a member or resource holder, we perform due diligence checks to verify the legality of the request and accompanying documentation. We also perform checks on an ongoing basis after the request has been approved as part of our audit activities. Examples of this can be found in the RIPE NCC procedural documents ‘Due Diligence for the Quality of the RIPE NCC Registration Data [1]’, ‘Transfer of Internet Number Resources and Change of a Member’s Official Legal Name [2]’, and ‘RIPE NCC Audit Activity [3]’. Due diligence checks may take into account legislation that is applicable to the party submitting the request (or the parties involved in the request). We perform these checks to protect the legitimate holder of the resources and to ensure the accuracy of the Internet number resource registry. The RIPE NCC can neither recognise nor deny one state’s authority over a region. According to the RIPE NCC procedural document ‘Due Diligence for the Quality of the RIPE NCC Registration Data [1]’, if a party is located in an area claimed by two or more widely recognised states, the RIPE NCC may accept proof of establishment issued by whichever national authority the signing party chooses. Accordingly, we may evaluate the impact of local legislation or authorities’ decisions on occupied areas on a case by case basis. Regarding the last part of your email, it is impossible to provide a comprehensive list of cases that constitute an exception, as we cannot predict all possible scenarios and the details of specific cases may differ. Discussing potential cases in general is problematic because it can easily lead to incorrect assumptions about our procedures. All of our decisions in this context will be consistent and seek to achieve the goals of the policy. Regards, Athina Fragkouli Chief Legal Officer RIPE NCC [1] Due Diligence for the Quality of the RIPE NCC Registration Data: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-791 [2] Transfer of Internet Number Resources and Change of a Member’s Official Legal Name https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-758 [3] RIPE NCC Audit Activity https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-694 > > Subject: [ncc-services-wg] Voluntary Transfer Lock V2 > Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 08:01:52 +0300 > From: Максим Смелянец <maxim.smelyanets3(a)gmail.com> <mailto:maxim.smelyanets3@gmail.com> > To: ncc-services-wg(a)ripe.net <mailto:ncc-services-wg@ripe.net> > > Hello for everyone! > > In general I agree with the new policy text, thanks for all your efforts and work. > > But I also have some questions and wishes. > > There are some notices in the Impact Analysis as «There might be situations where the RIPE NCC cannot enforce the Lock. If the RIPE NCC receives a legally binding decision/order related to Internet number resources under a Lock, the RIPE NCC will have to comply with the order. The RIPE NCC might also not be able to enforce the Lock if it is against any applicable laws or regulations». Can you concretize what does it mean «binding decision/order»? And when you write about the «any applicable lows and regulations» - what exactly it meant by this? The same applies to the text of the policy itself in the paragraph Implementation Choices when you wrote about restrictions from any applicable laws or regulations. It is not clear what applicable lows do you mean. Because for example for Ukrainian holders it can be read as you can apply also low of occupying authorities. > > And my wish is to clarify all exceptions of the inability to enforce the lock and provide a comprehensive list of cases that constitute an exception, or provide criteria for determining the relevant situations in further accompanying documents or in the final version of the policy. Because the lack of clarity may lead to inconsistent decision-making and the implementation of the RIPE NCC blocking mechanism. > > With best regards to everyone, > > > Maxim Smelyanets. >

1 0

Transfer Voluntary Lock
by Oleksandr Tsaran 01 Sep '23

01 Sep '23

Hello. We maintain the current version of the policy. -- Net-City 2020, LLC Oleksandr Tsaran

1 0

Voluntary Transfer Lock Policy
by Igor Tarasenko 31 Aug '23

31 Aug '23

Dear Colleagues, Good job with new policy draft, I support it. Best regards, Igor Tarasenko

7 8

Voluntary Transfer Lock V2
by Максим Смелянец 30 Aug '23

30 Aug '23

Hello for everyone! In general I agree with the new policy text, thanks for all your efforts and work. But I also have some questions and wishes. There are some notices in the Impact Analysis as «There might be situations where the RIPE NCC cannot enforce the Lock. If the RIPE NCC receives a legally binding decision/order related to Internet number resources under a Lock, the RIPE NCC will have to comply with the order. The RIPE NCC might also not be able to enforce the Lock if it is against any applicable laws or regulations». Can you concretize what does it mean «binding decision/order»? And when you write about the «any applicable lows and regulations» - what exactly it meant by this? The same applies to the text of the policy itself in the paragraph Implementation Choices when you wrote about restrictions from any applicable laws or regulations. It is not clear what applicable lows do you mean. Because for example for Ukrainian holders it can be read as you can apply also low of occupying authorities. And my wish is to clarify all exceptions of the inability to enforce the lock and provide a comprehensive list of cases that constitute an exception, or provide criteria for determining the relevant situations in further accompanying documents or in the final version of the policy. Because the lack of clarity may lead to inconsistent decision-making and the implementation of the RIPE NCC blocking mechanism. With best regards to everyone, Maxim Smelyanets.

3 2