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

Fwd: [anti-abuse-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)
by Brian Nisbet 18 Feb '13

18 Feb '13

Good people of the NCC Services WG, The following policy '2013-01 Openness about Policy Violations' started it's trip through the PDP yesterday. While the discussions on this proposal will take place in the Anti-Abuse working group, I just wanted to make sure this WG was aware as there are obvious implications for NCC processes & procedures. Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations) Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:05:23 +0100 From: Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net> Reply-To: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net To: policy-announce(a)ripe.net CC: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-01 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> before 14 March 2013. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

6 15

2012-07 Discussion Period extended until 21 February 2013 (RIPE NCC Service to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)
by Kornfellner Johannes, Ing. 18 Feb '13

18 Feb '13

Hello, this proposal (https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2013-January/001972…) seems to provide a good balance between the legacy resource holders' existing rights and community's wish for accurate registration data. It provides several options for a direct or indirect contractual relationship between a Legacy Internet Resource Holder and the RIPE NCC. I think that this crucial to cover the different needs of the different legacy resource holders. I therefore support this proposal. Best Regards, Ing. Johannes Kornfellner Parlamentsdirektion A1.5 EDV / Systemgruppe [file:///C:\Users\jk\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Signatures\CorporateDesign.jpg] A-1017 Wien - Parlament Tel. +43 1 401 10-2822 Mob. +43 676 8900 2822 Fax +43 1 401 10-2848

1 0

Re: [ncc-services-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal(Openness about Policy Violations)
by Jørgen Hovland 16 Feb '13

16 Feb '13

1 0

Re: [ncc-services-wg] [ncc-announce] [news] RPKI and PI End Users Proposal - Feedback Requested
by Nick Hilliard 14 Feb '13

14 Feb '13

On 11/02/2013 13:55, Axel Pawlik wrote: > The functionality that we most commonly receive requests for is to make > address space held by Provider Independent (PI) End Users eligible for > certification. During the RIPE 65 Meeting in Amsterdam, there were > discussions on this and the RIPE NCC Executive Board extensively > deliberated the issue. Based on these discussions, the Executive Board > now submits this proposal for consideration and discussion to you, the > RIPE NCC membership and the RIPE community. If I'm reading this correctly, the board has already decided to provide RPKI services to PI address holders without a RIPE community policy proposal or a RIPE NCC membership vote, and this email is just soliciting opinions on the terms of this decision. Could I respectfully suggest that the board put this proposal through the normal channels for policy development, i.e. the PDP. Nick

3 3

Re: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources)
by Randy Bush 14 Feb '13

14 Feb '13

< peanut gallery > this one seems a no brainer to me. it's just part of proper and open documentation of registration and allocation, the ncc's primary job. as far as the lir not wanting to be known to have sponsored a pi site, if the lir is ashamed of doing something, maybe they should not have done it. i just don't get this stuff. correct and open documentation is the ncc's primary job. randy

6 21

Re: [ncc-services-wg] [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 Proposal Accepted - Request for Clarification
by Sascha Luck 13 Feb '13

13 Feb '13

Hi, On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 03:55:30PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote: >The updated RIPE document is ripe-577 and is available at: > >https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-577 ripe-577 contains, in S5.5 the sentence: "Re-allocated blocks will be signed to establish the current allocation owner." What does this refer to? Does this mean these blocks will *mandatorily* be signed with a RPKI certificate and, if yes, how does that square with the NCC's stated policy that RPKI certs will always be voluntary? Regards, Sascha Luck

2 2

IPv4 Transfer Listing Service: Streamlining Resource Transfers
by Alex Band 13 Feb '13

13 Feb '13

Dear colleagues, Over a year ago, the RIPE NCC introduced the IPv4 Transfer Listing Service, aimed at streamlining the resource transfer process: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/listing When the service was launched, it gave RIPE NCC members the ability to list the IPv4 address space they held and were looking to transfer. In November, we announced that RIPE NCC members would soon be able to use the service to list IPv4 transfers they would like to receive, and we are happy to confirm that this feature has now been added. Members can indicate their desired prefix size, whether the transfer is to be permanent or temporary, and any other details they wish to disclose. Only RIPE NCC members can view the details in the LIR Portal. In addition, the RIPE NCC has published a section with information relating to IPv4 transfers on our website. This will be updated as-needed to reflect any changes to RIPE Policies or procedures: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/ipv4-transfers For those interested in transfers, there are currently two policy proposals from the RIPE community in the PDP that are being discussed in the RIPE Address Policy Working Group: - 2012-02, Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space - 2012-03, Intra-RIR Transfer Policy Proposal If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Kind regards Alex Band Product Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [ncc-services-wg] [news] RPKI and PI End Users Proposal - Feedback Requested
by Randy Bush 11 Feb '13

11 Feb '13

other issues aside (am busy hacking) this seems to omit the equivalent of option 2.4 in 2012-07, to quote 2.4 Option to engage directly with the RIPE NCC A Legacy Internet Resource Holder whose circumstances match those described in section 2.3 above, but cannot find a Sponsoring LIR with which a mutually satisfactory contract of the kind mentioned in that section, may opt to enter a non-member service contract with the RIPE NCC for the purposes of registering the Legacy Resources involved, subject to the conditions defined in Section 3 below. randy

1 0

Proposal 2012-07
by Jaska Kivelä 08 Feb '13

08 Feb '13

As the holder of inetnum: 192.26.111.0 - 192.26.111.255 netname: TTEK-NET we state our support for https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-07 Thank you. -jk -- Jaska Kivelä jaska(a)kivela.net Katistentie 61 +358-40-5762988 FIN-13250 HÄMEENLINNA http://www.kivela.net/jaska/ Finland

1 0

Something for the RIPE NCC to consider?
by Shane Kerr 08 Feb '13

08 Feb '13

All, I've mentioned something like a "RIPE NCC transparency report" a few times: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/its-time-transparency-reports-become-… Cheers, -- Shane

1 0