2012-08 Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources Moved to Last Call
All, following the discussions regarding policy proposal 2012-08 in the NCC-Services WG the chairs have decided a consensus for moving forward exists and thus the proposal is moved to Last Call. Kurtis & Bijal NCC Services WG chairs
Hi Kurtis, Bijal, as for me, there is no clear consensus. RIPE NCC is going to publish sensitive financial-related information, which can affect members' business processes. This information is not a contact data for abuse contacts. Probably the other way for approval such publication is a voting of NCC members at the GM. -- Sergey On Oct 16, 2013, at 10:04 AM, Lindqvist Kurt Erik <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se> wrote:
All,
following the discussions regarding policy proposal 2012-08 in the NCC-Services WG the chairs have decided a consensus for moving forward exists and thus the proposal is moved to Last Call.
Kurtis & Bijal NCC Services WG chairs
Sergey, On 16 okt 2013, at 10:07, Sergey Myasoedov <sergey@devnull.ru> wrote:
as for me, there is no clear consensus.
you can appeal this decision if you believe we have acted in error. However, I would like to point out that consensus does not mean universal agreement, and I still believe there is a consensus for this proposal in the WG.
RIPE NCC is going to publish sensitive financial-related information, which can affect members' business processes. This information is not a contact data for abuse contacts. Probably the other way for approval such publication is a voting of NCC members at the GM.
That's a question for the RIPE NCC GM. Best regards, - kurtis -
Sergey Myasoedov <sergey@devnull.ru>,
as for me, there is no clear consensus.
Kurtis:
you can appeal this decision if you believe we have acted in error. However, I would like to point out that consensus does not mean universal agreement, and I still believe there is a consensus for this proposal in the WG.
perhaps sergey would find draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt helpful consensus != unanimity randy
On 16 okt 2013, at 10:52, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Sergey Myasoedov <sergey@devnull.ru>,
as for me, there is no clear consensus.
Kurtis:
you can appeal this decision if you believe we have acted in error. However, I would like to point out that consensus does not mean universal agreement, and I still believe there is a consensus for this proposal in the WG.
perhaps sergey would find draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt helpful
consensus != unanimity
Thanks, this can be found at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-resnick-on-consensus-05 for reference. Best regards, - kurtis -
Randy, you are right and I am not trying to decide whether we do have consensus as I am not a chair of WG. Kurtis, Please consider my message as a comment to a proposal. I already posted my thoughts before, and I hope the reason of objection is clear. Let's postpone the implementation of proposal until next GM (or until the board decides not to put this question to GM agenda). -- Sergey On Oct 16, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Sergey Myasoedov <sergey@devnull.ru>,
as for me, there is no clear consensus.
Kurtis:
you can appeal this decision if you believe we have acted in error. However, I would like to point out that consensus does not mean universal agreement, and I still believe there is a consensus for this proposal in the WG.
perhaps sergey would find draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt helpful
consensus != unanimity
randy
IP address space is a technical ressource in general. Difference between PI and PA is just administrative, assigned IP address will always work independently on it's status. For PA address space, financial-related informations ale published already (should be, by policy), there's no real reason to hide similar informations for PI address space. By publishing sponsoring LIR, only existence of relationship between LIR and End-User is visible. It's not about detailed contract content (financial aspects). Members of RIPE also should be able to verify, if ripe-452 policy is implemented properly by RIPE NCC. Publication of sponsoring LIR provides this option. There should not be some "dark" IP spaces, where we'll not able to found responsible LIR. Policies aren't developed on GM. There's no reason to postpone this until GM. This proposal brings more transparency and it was discussed properly within WG. With regards, Daniel On 10/16/2013 11:01 AM, Sergey Myasoedov wrote:
Randy, you are right and I am not trying to decide whether we do have consensus as I am not a chair of WG.
Kurtis, Please consider my message as a comment to a proposal. I already posted my thoughts before, and I hope the reason of objection is clear. Let's postpone the implementation of proposal until next GM (or until the board decides not to put this question to GM agenda).
-- Sergey
On Oct 16, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Sergey Myasoedov <sergey@devnull.ru>,
as for me, there is no clear consensus.
Kurtis:
you can appeal this decision if you believe we have acted in error. However, I would like to point out that consensus does not mean universal agreement, and I still believe there is a consensus for this proposal in the WG.
perhaps sergey would find draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt helpful
consensus != unanimity
randy
Daniel, exactly, all this administrativia is in our mind. PI objects have no privileges in comparing with PA, nothing is hidden. We don't need to know who is collecting the payments for LIR sponsoring. As well as we don't need to know who exactly signed the contract or what is a birthdate of PI owner's CEO. RIPE-452 condition check is performing by the RIPE NCC and I am satisfied with this. The good thing is that NCC decided on obligatory publication of PI holder name. That is enough, I believe. 2007-01 is not yet completely implemented, there are some PIs without the sponsoring LIR remains. Let the NCC work on this. -- Sergey On Oct 16, 2013, at 12:34 PM, Daniel Suchy <danny@danysek.cz> wrote:
IP address space is a technical ressource in general. Difference between PI and PA is just administrative, assigned IP address will always work independently on it's status.
For PA address space, financial-related informations ale published already (should be, by policy), there's no real reason to hide similar informations for PI address space. By publishing sponsoring LIR, only existence of relationship between LIR and End-User is visible. It's not about detailed contract content (financial aspects).
Members of RIPE also should be able to verify, if ripe-452 policy is implemented properly by RIPE NCC. Publication of sponsoring LIR provides this option. There should not be some "dark" IP spaces, where we'll not able to found responsible LIR.
Policies aren't developed on GM. There's no reason to postpone this until GM. This proposal brings more transparency and it was discussed properly within WG.
With regards, Daniel
On 10/16/2013 11:01 AM, Sergey Myasoedov wrote:
Randy, you are right and I am not trying to decide whether we do have consensus as I am not a chair of WG.
Kurtis, Please consider my message as a comment to a proposal. I already posted my thoughts before, and I hope the reason of objection is clear. Let's postpone the implementation of proposal until next GM (or until the board decides not to put this question to GM agenda).
-- Sergey
On Oct 16, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Sergey Myasoedov <sergey@devnull.ru>,
as for me, there is no clear consensus.
Kurtis:
you can appeal this decision if you believe we have acted in error. However, I would like to point out that consensus does not mean universal agreement, and I still believe there is a consensus for this proposal in the WG.
perhaps sergey would find draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt helpful
consensus != unanimity
randy
Hello, On 10/16/2013 12:34 PM, Sergey Myasoedov wrote:
exactly, all this administrativia is in our mind. PI objects have no privileges in comparing with PA, nothing is hidden. We don't need to know who is collecting the payments for LIR sponsoring. As well as we don't need to know who exactly signed the contract or what is a birthdate of PI owner's CEO. For PA space, I'm able to locate LIR responsible for each particular assignment almost without exception. I just like similar option for PI addresses. This information is hidden.
PI address space wasn't designed for this kind of "privacy". Why should be there any difference between end-user of PA and end-user of PI address in terms of responsible LIR publication? You didn't provided clear ansver for that. For PA end-users, contract is always clear "who is collecting the payments" (and this is majority of addresses managed by RIPE). And still, in ripe-592, PI existence is still declared mainly for *multihoming* purposes - just for technical reasons. PI existence was *never* declared for privacy you're requesting. If some LIRs assigned PI just because there're less informations traceable (and it seems you did), that was wrong understanding of PI space. That's my oppinion.
RIPE-452 condition check is performing by the RIPE NCC and I am satisfied with this. The good thing is that NCC decided on obligatory publication of PI holder name. That is enough, I believe.
2007-01 is not yet completely implemented, there are some PIs without the sponsoring LIR remains. Let the NCC work on this. That's no reason for hiding this information for PI space, where this information is available. As mentioned above.
I then can ask RIPE NCC, why on particular PI IP isn't this information available. But I don't have to contact RIPE NCC in case of any problem with PI end-user, if I have such information available - I can simply contact LIR directly, in case of direct End User contact failure. It's normal RIR-LIR-EndUser hiearchy. It works for PA for years, and there's no reason not to have similar hiearchy publicly reachable for PI. With regards, Daniel
-- Sergey
On Oct 16, 2013, at 12:34 PM, Daniel Suchy <danny@danysek.cz> wrote:
IP address space is a technical ressource in general. Difference between PI and PA is just administrative, assigned IP address will always work independently on it's status.
For PA address space, financial-related informations ale published already (should be, by policy), there's no real reason to hide similar informations for PI address space. By publishing sponsoring LIR, only existence of relationship between LIR and End-User is visible. It's not about detailed contract content (financial aspects).
Members of RIPE also should be able to verify, if ripe-452 policy is implemented properly by RIPE NCC. Publication of sponsoring LIR provides this option. There should not be some "dark" IP spaces, where we'll not able to found responsible LIR.
Policies aren't developed on GM. There's no reason to postpone this until GM. This proposal brings more transparency and it was discussed properly within WG.
With regards, Daniel
On 10/16/2013 11:01 AM, Sergey Myasoedov wrote:
Randy, you are right and I am not trying to decide whether we do have consensus as I am not a chair of WG.
Kurtis, Please consider my message as a comment to a proposal. I already posted my thoughts before, and I hope the reason of objection is clear. Let's postpone the implementation of proposal until next GM (or until the board decides not to put this question to GM agenda).
-- Sergey
On Oct 16, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Sergey Myasoedov <sergey@devnull.ru>,
as for me, there is no clear consensus.
Kurtis:
you can appeal this decision if you believe we have acted in error. However, I would like to point out that consensus does not mean universal agreement, and I still believe there is a consensus for this proposal in the WG.
perhaps sergey would find draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt helpful
consensus != unanimity
randy
Daniel, thank you for the discussion.
For PA space, I'm able to locate LIR responsible for each particular assignment almost without exception. I just like similar option for PI addresses. This information is hidden.
Sponsoring LIR is not responsible for the PI assignment at all, so we should not talk about 'similar option'. The goal of sponsoring is to provide to customer (PI owner) with a RIPE-452-compliant contract. There is often no connectivity service provided. Even more, sponsoring LIR normally is not controlling the database objects related to PI.
PI address space wasn't designed for this kind of "privacy". Why should be there any difference between end-user of PA and end-user of PI address in terms of responsible LIR publication? You didn't provided clear ansver for that.
I am not talking about privacy. The requirement of transparency is present in RIPE-452: … A clear statement that the resources will return by default to the RIPE NCC if The resource holder cannot be contacted So in case when PI holder does not wish to answer to your mails, you can not do anything, and even if you know that nl.example is in contractual relationship with the 'PI Owner Ltd' - you still can not require the answer from the PI holder.
I then can ask RIPE NCC, why on particular PI IP isn't this information available. But I don't have to contact RIPE NCC in case of any problem with PI end-user, if I have such information available - I can simply contact LIR directly, in case of direct End User contact failure. It's normal RIR-LIR-EndUser hiearchy. It works for PA for years, and there's no reason not to have similar hiearchy publicly reachable for PI.
As 2012-08 does not have an obligation for sponsoring LIR to be a mail-broker between the whole world and PI holders - this proposal seems useless and harmful to me. -- Sergey On Oct 16, 2013, at 2:51 PM, Daniel Suchy <danny@danysek.cz> wrote:
Hello,
On 10/16/2013 12:34 PM, Sergey Myasoedov wrote:
exactly, all this administrativia is in our mind. PI objects have no privileges in comparing with PA, nothing is hidden. We don't need to know who is collecting the payments for LIR sponsoring. As well as we don't need to know who exactly signed the contract or what is a birthdate of PI owner's CEO. For PA space, I'm able to locate LIR responsible for each particular assignment almost without exception. I just like similar option for PI addresses. This information is hidden.
PI address space wasn't designed for this kind of "privacy". Why should be there any difference between end-user of PA and end-user of PI address in terms of responsible LIR publication? You didn't provided clear ansver for that.
For PA end-users, contract is always clear "who is collecting the payments" (and this is majority of addresses managed by RIPE). And still, in ripe-592, PI existence is still declared mainly for *multihoming* purposes - just for technical reasons. PI existence was *never* declared for privacy you're requesting. If some LIRs assigned PI just because there're less informations traceable (and it seems you did), that was wrong understanding of PI space. That's my oppinion.
RIPE-452 condition check is performing by the RIPE NCC and I am satisfied with this. The good thing is that NCC decided on obligatory publication of PI holder name. That is enough, I believe.
2007-01 is not yet completely implemented, there are some PIs without the sponsoring LIR remains. Let the NCC work on this. That's no reason for hiding this information for PI space, where this information is available. As mentioned above.
I then can ask RIPE NCC, why on particular PI IP isn't this information available. But I don't have to contact RIPE NCC in case of any problem with PI end-user, if I have such information available - I can simply contact LIR directly, in case of direct End User contact failure. It's normal RIR-LIR-EndUser hiearchy. It works for PA for years, and there's no reason not to have similar hiearchy publicly reachable for PI.
With regards, Daniel
-- Sergey
On Oct 16, 2013, at 12:34 PM, Daniel Suchy <danny@danysek.cz> wrote:
IP address space is a technical ressource in general. Difference between PI and PA is just administrative, assigned IP address will always work independently on it's status.
For PA address space, financial-related informations ale published already (should be, by policy), there's no real reason to hide similar informations for PI address space. By publishing sponsoring LIR, only existence of relationship between LIR and End-User is visible. It's not about detailed contract content (financial aspects).
Members of RIPE also should be able to verify, if ripe-452 policy is implemented properly by RIPE NCC. Publication of sponsoring LIR provides this option. There should not be some "dark" IP spaces, where we'll not able to found responsible LIR.
Policies aren't developed on GM. There's no reason to postpone this until GM. This proposal brings more transparency and it was discussed properly within WG.
With regards, Daniel
On 10/16/2013 11:01 AM, Sergey Myasoedov wrote:
Randy, you are right and I am not trying to decide whether we do have consensus as I am not a chair of WG.
Kurtis, Please consider my message as a comment to a proposal. I already posted my thoughts before, and I hope the reason of objection is clear. Let's postpone the implementation of proposal until next GM (or until the board decides not to put this question to GM agenda).
-- Sergey
On Oct 16, 2013, at 11:52 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
Sergey Myasoedov <sergey@devnull.ru>,
> as for me, there is no clear consensus.
Kurtis:
you can appeal this decision if you believe we have acted in error. However, I would like to point out that consensus does not mean universal agreement, and I still believe there is a consensus for this proposal in the WG.
perhaps sergey would find draft-resnick-on-consensus-05.txt helpful
consensus != unanimity
randy
Hi, On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 03:10:52PM +0300, Sergey Myasoedov wrote:
As 2012-08 does not have an obligation for sponsoring LIR to be a mail-broker between the whole world and PI holders - this proposal seems useless and harmful to me.
We have heard your opposition to the proposal, noted it, and the WG chairs have considered it as *addressed* and moved forward to Last Call. The PDP permits that. So unless you have new ground for opposition, repetition of already-considered statements will not make any difference now. Gert Doering -- 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
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:51:21PM +0200, Daniel Suchy wrote:
For PA space, I'm able to locate LIR responsible for each particular assignment almost without exception. I just like similar option for PI addresses. This information is hidden.
That is exactly the nub of the argument. There IS NO responsibility of a LIR for a PI assignment, this responsibility lies with the resource holder. The only "responsibility" the sponsoring LIR has is to forward information to the NCC, the LIR does not even have the discretion to approve or deny this assignment itself. This proposal tries to establish a responsibility on the part of the sponsoring LIR for the behaviour of the resource holder. The NCC has, cynically, acknowledged this fact by designing an implementation procedure whereby each sponsoring LIR is asked whether they don't want to get rid of inconvenient PI contracts altogether.
PI address space wasn't designed for this kind of "privacy". Why should be there any difference between end-user of PA and end-user of PI address in terms of responsible LIR publication? You didn't provided clear ansver for that.
For the fundamental difference between PI and PA, see above. If this difference is not wanted, please support 2013-06. I have one more thing to say to the RIPE community: The outcome of the "PDP" seems to have, lately, mostly depended on *who* floated a proposal, *who* objected and *who* yelled the loudest. Not even to mention ad hominem attacks from "terrorist" to "crazy". If you keep insisting on making this PDP a vehicle for giving the ideas of a small clique a veneer of legitimacy, the internet community *will route around you*. The RIR system will become irrelevant. That's all folks, Sascha Luck PS: I'm still opposed to this proposal, in case it wasn't clear enough. Not that it matters.
Hi Sasha, A small correction:
That is exactly the nub of the argument. There IS NO responsibility of a LIR for a PI assignment, this responsibility lies with the resource holder.
The policy (RIPE-452) says: "Notice that the LIR is responsible for liaising with the resource holder to keep registration records up-to-date". So the LIR does have a responsibility.
I have one more thing to say to the RIPE community: The outcome of the "PDP" seems to have, lately, mostly depended on *who* floated a proposal, *who* objected and *who* yelled the loudest.
I am sorry that you feel like this, but I can assure you that the collective of working group chairs watches each other carefully to make sure that all policy development is done correctly. If a working group chair declares consensus when the working group is not unanimously supporting a policy proposal then that basis for that decision is carefully evaluated. And there is always the option to appeal a decision made by a working group chair. The chairs are volunteers working for their working group community after all.
If you keep insisting on making this PDP a vehicle for giving the ideas of a small clique a veneer of legitimacy, the internet community *will route around you*.
One of the chair's responsibilities is to make sure that policy development is based on consensus. Objections to a policy must be handled in some way. Finding a better policy text that removes those objections and is also supported by the rest of the working group is preferred, but support for a policy does not have to be unanimous. Sometimes it is not possible to make everybody happy. The chairs then weigh all options and try to find the best outcome for the whole community. I can assure you that this is *difficult* but we (the WG chairs collective as a whole) do our best. Cheers, Sander
Hi Sander, On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:27:06AM +0300, Sander Steffann wrote:
The policy (RIPE-452) says: "Notice that the LIR is responsible for liaising with the resource holder to keep registration records up-to-date". So the LIR does have a responsibility.
I know, what I meant was "responsibility to police behaviour of the resource holder" Sorry for not being clearer.
chair declares consensus when the working group is not unanimously supporting a policy proposal then that basis for that decision is carefully evaluated. And there is always the option to appeal a decision made by a working group chair. The chairs are volunteers working for their working group community after all.
Sure, but this proposal fundamentally changes the relationship between a sponsoring LIR and a resource holder in the guise of "just adding another field to the inet[6]num object". I feel that such change deserves a better argumentation and defence than just some hand-wavy "oh, BUT MORE TRANSPARENCY!!1!" ideological rhetoric. I find it interesting how, with some proposals, every hair is split three ways, every minor wording change endlessly debated and with others any objection is swept off the table because "doesn't matter, it's more transparent". A couple things that would make the PDP more palatable: - would it be too much of an extra burden on the WG-chairs to summarise, briefly, how they arrived at the decision that consensus has been achieved/not achieved? (much like a judge would substantiate how they arrived at a given verdict but maybe not quite so verbose) - stop the +1 BS. Every voice in support *or* against a proposal to, at least, give a brief reasoning why. I consider it disrespectful if one spends much time composing and arguing an objection if it can be overridden by "+1". It's changing the way Internet resources are being managed, not godsdamn Facebook. rgds, Sascha Luck
Hi Sasha,
A couple things that would make the PDP more palatable:
- would it be too much of an extra burden on the WG-chairs to summarise, briefly, how they arrived at the decision that consensus has been achieved/not achieved? (much like a judge would substantiate how they arrived at a given verdict but maybe not quite so verbose)
We do try to do that, but I agree: this this is very important!
- stop the +1 BS. Every voice in support *or* against a proposal to, at least, give a brief reasoning why.
I disagree with you here. A policy proposal is made for a reason, and that reason is included in the proposal itself. A +1 is expressing support for the proposal for the reasons specified in that policy.
I consider it disrespectful if one spends much time composing and arguing an objection if it can be overridden by "+1".
It is important for the chairs to see the difference between people who don't care about a policy proposal and people who stay silent because they agree with the content. Seeing +1 messages helps here. For example: a proposal with no feedback on the mailing list at all will likely be dropped/withdrawn, but a proposal with +1 replies will likely not be dropped/withdrawn. An objection will always be discussed based on its supporting arguments, and only if the objection can't be resolved will the chairs consider any +1's: we cannot abandon a policy proposal because one person (or a few) have a non-resolvable objection that is not shared by rest of the community. Nobody has veto rights.
It's changing the way Internet resources are being managed, not godsdamn Facebook.
I know. Sander
Sascha, As this is now a generic thread and have nothing to do with 2012-08 I have changed the topic. On 17 okt 2013, at 12:26, Sascha Luck <lists-ripe@c4inet.net> wrote:
chair declares consensus when the working group is not unanimously supporting a policy proposal then that basis for that decision is carefully evaluated. And there is always the option to appeal a decision made by a working group chair. The chairs are volunteers working for their working group community after all.
Sure, but this proposal fundamentally changes the relationship between a sponsoring LIR and a resource holder in the guise of "just adding another field to the inet[6]num object". I feel that such change deserves a better argumentation and defence than just some hand-wavy "oh, BUT MORE TRANSPARENCY!!1!" ideological rhetoric. I find it interesting how, with some proposals, every hair is split three ways, every minor wording change endlessly debated and with others any objection is swept off the table because "doesn't matter, it's more transparent".
Hoe much discussion and how detail a proposal receives is up to the members of the working group and not the chairs. I can't substantiate this but my impression is that the detailed level of discussion has more to do with how complex a proposal is than anything else.
A couple things that would make the PDP more palatable:
- would it be too much of an extra burden on the WG-chairs to summarise, briefly, how they arrived at the decision that consensus has been achieved/not achieved? (much like a judge would substantiate how they arrived at a given verdict but maybe not quite so verbose)
I think writing a "verdict" might be hard. Consensus is when, as described in draft-resnick-on-consensus, all issues as been addressed but not accommodated. I can only speak for this working group, but we at least go through the archives to make sure this is the case, and we then look at how people have argued and if in favor or against. This is not voting, but determining that there is wide support, and that all issues have been addressed. In this particular proposal I believe it would have passed if using majority voting, consensus etc. But it wasn't unanimous. If the WG-chairs where to have to distill all concerns raised against a proposal, how they where addressed and if they where accommodated, yes that would be a lot of work. Again, the WG chairs decisions are being screened by the other WG chairs, and there is an appeals procedure.
- stop the +1 BS. Every voice in support *or* against a proposal to, at least, give a brief reasoning why. I consider it disrespectful if one spends much time composing and arguing an objection if it can be overridden by "+1". It's changing the way Internet resources are being managed, not godsdamn Facebook.
I at least interpret the +1 (or -1 or don't support comments) as the view of someone who has read a proposal and either believes it adds value or makes a policy "better", or not. I don't see how that would need to be elaborated more, and in most cases it probably even wouldn't. But if you could give more examples perhaps that would help. Best regards, - kurtis -
participants (8)
-
Daniel Suchy -
Gert Doering -
Lindqvist Kurt Erik -
Randy Bush -
Sander Steffann -
Sascha Luck -
Sergey Myasoedov -
Sergey Myasoedov