February 2018 - ripe-list - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [ripe-list] [ncc-announce] [news] New RIPE NCC Ticketing System and Contact Form
by sergey＠devnull.ru 01 Jul '19

01 Jul '19

Dear Matt, I have a question regarding new ticketing system. Some days ago I sent an email and attached a file to my message. I received a receipt of ticket, then the NCC staff member replied to my question and I received a mail that contain a previous email content and a weblink to the file I attached before. The link was active and I was able to download the file. The link points to https://ripencc.zendesk.com/attachments/token/blablabla/?name=filename. The problem I see is that ripencc.zendesk.com is a hostname on the server in a cloud, the network is assigned to an Irish company and it seems that the file storage is not under RIPE NCC's control. This hostname is not reachable over IPv6, but this is not the issue I wish to discuss now. Can you clarify whether e-mail attachments/archives at RIPE NCC are stored at the third party servers? Do you think it is acceptable? Thank you. -- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov > On 1 Nov 2017, at 14:12, Matt Parker <mparker(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > Today, the RIPE NCC launches its new ticketing system. There is a RIPE > Labs article that explains the background behind this change at: > https://labs.ripe.net/Members/AlexBand/ticketing-and-document-management-at… > > This change will mostly impact RIPE NCC staff and will not change how > you deal with the RIPE NCC. You should still make requests for > resources, transfers, company name changes, etc. through your LIR > account via my.ripe.net. > > All your questions and reports can be channeled through our new contact > form, which combines the old contact and report form functionality. The > new form also presents suggested content to users that can help to > provide them with useful information. The form is available at: > https://www.ripe.net/contact-form > > Submissions made through the form will be ticketised and all > documentation will be stored separately and securely in the RIPE NCC's > Document Management System. > > Please reply to the emails you receive to ensure your ticket is updated. > You should add your replies to tickets at the top of your email and not > reply "in line". Additional documentation can be submitted via the My > Tickets functionality available to LIR account holders at: > https://my.ripe.net/#/tickets > > We have planned the migration to have as little impact as possible. If > you do experience any delays in response during this period, please bear > with us. And if you have any questions, please let me know. > > Best regards, > > Matt Parker > Business Analyst - Product Management > RIPE NCC >

7 8

Call for Nominations: Rob Blokzijl Award
by Mirjam Kuehne 09 Mar '18

09 Mar '18

Dear colleagues, To celebrate the memory of Rob Blokzijl, Internet pioneer, founder and Chair of RIPE for 25 years, the Rob Blokzijl Foundation is pleased to invite nominations for the 2018 Rob Blokzijl Award. We will announce the recipient of the award during the RIPE 76 meeting in May 2018. The recipient will be a living person who has made substantial and sustained technical or operational contributions to the development of the Internet in the RIPE NCC service region. We specifically seek nominations of individuals who, in addition to their own contributions, have also supported and enabled others anywhere in the world. You can find more information on the nomination and selection procedure below and also on the following web page: http://rob-blokzijl-foundation.org/call-for-nominations.html Please help us spread the word by sending this call to anyone who may be interested. The 2018 Rob Blokzijl Award Committee Jaap Akkerhuis Eva Frölich Elise Gerich Daniel Karrenberg Niall O'Reilly ================== Nomination and Selection Procedure - Nominations are to be made by the proposer, who may be either the nominee in person or someone else. - Each nomination must include the following material: - The name and contact details of the nominee and those of the proposer (if different) - A statement of whether the nominee is aware that the nomination is being made - A statement, in as much detail as the proposer considers appropriate, setting out how the nominee meets the requirements for the award and a description of the proposer's relationship to the nominee; - A brief summary (no longer than 79 words) of the nominee's contributions, suitable for the award document - A professional biography or curriculum vitae of the nominee - For additional guidance, proposers can refer to the example nomination - Members of the Award Committee and the Foundation Board may not be nominated - Nominations must be submitted before 16 March 2018 23:59 UTC - Nominations should be sent to the following email address: <nominations(a)rob-blokzijl-foundation.org> - The Award Committee will report to the Foundation Board, indicating the selected awardee, as close to 26 March 2017 as possible

1 1

Register now for SEE 7 in Timișoara
by SEEurope 27 Feb '18

27 Feb '18

Dear colleagues, Join us for the seventh South East Europe (SEE 7)/RIPE NCC Regional Meeting in the historical Romanian city of Timișoara. SEE 7 will be held in Hotel Timișoara on 18 and 19 June 2018. The meeting is open to everyone and attendance is free of charge. Register for your place: http://www.ripe.net/see-7/register Top three reasons to join SEE 7: - Network with your peers and make new business contacts - Learn about best practices in your industry - Share your experience and ask advice from industry experts This meeting covers a wide range of topics, including: - IPv4 scarcity and IPv6 deployment - Commercial transactions of IPv4 addresses - Data centre technologies - Network, DNS and IXP operations - Internet governance and regulatory practices The SEE Programme Committee is now seeking content proposals from the community for the plenary session presentations, panels, workshops and lightning talks at SEE 7. Please submit your presentation proposals by 16 March: https://www.ripe.net/see-7/call-for-presentations Are you a talented Internet technology researcher? Are you working on interesting research? Apply for RACI before 4 March - it's open now! https://www.ripe.net/see-7/ripe-academic-cooperation-initiative-raci Complete information about the meeting can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/see-7 I look forward to seeing you in Timișoara! Best regards, Martina Conference Coordinator RIPE NCC

1 0

RIPE Fellowship at RIPE 76 - Apply Now
by Amanda Gowland 27 Feb '18

27 Feb '18

Dear colleagues, We are now accepting applications for the RIPE Fellowship at RIPE 76 in Marseille (14-18 May 2018). The RIPE Fellowship covers the cost of a meeting ticket, travel and accommodation for successful candidates in the RIPE NCC service region. *The application deadline is 6 April 2018 at 18:00 UTC* Apply now: www.ripe.net/fellowship To read more about the fellowship, see: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/agowland/embracing-the-next-generation-of-rip… Warm regards, Amanda Gowland On behalf of the RIPE Fellowship Selection Committee

1 0

Re: [ripe-list] Discussion on financial support for RIPE Chair
by Malcolm Hutty 21 Feb '18

21 Feb '18

Alexander Isavnin wrote: > > Support Option 2. > > Option 1 could move RIPE Community to uncomfortable lands of formalized organization, with unspecific for responsibilities Community > > Option 3 might cause conflicts of interests, making RIPE Chair dependent on a bad will of NCC's board or management. Before leaping to conclusions, it might be worth kicking around ideas for how the risks identified in Option 3 might be mitigated. I agree think the risk of loss of independence is a valid concern we should be wary about. I wouldn't agree with someone who was casually dismissive of this as an issue. But Option 3 doesn't *have* to be "the RIPE Chair is employed at will by, and under the direct instructions of, the NCC". With care and thought, I am confident we can do better than that. The main reason why the RIPE Community cannot employ its own Chair is that the Community does not exist as a legal person and so cannot form a contract, either with the Chair or the NCC. However, the Chair *will* be a legal person, and can form (and would) have a contract with the NCC. The terms of this contract could in principle be designed to protect his independence from the NCC, and accountability to the RIPE community. The Chair will himself have an interest defending those terms. For example, perhaps the contract could provide that it may not be terminated by the NCC unless and until some RIPE community process has removed the person as Chair [*]. That might still require us to be a bit more clear what the process in the RIPE community for removal of the Chair should be, but it moves the locus of work to be done back into the community. [*] There may be legal quibbles e.g. "you can't have a commitment to employ someone for an infinite period", but there can be workarounds: make it a fixed term contract of (say) fifty years, which could be terminated early but only under the following conditions...[by the Chair himself, by the RIPE community]. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA

3 2

Discussion on financial support for RIPE Chair
by Nigel Titley 19 Feb '18

19 Feb '18

At the last Executive board meeting I took an action to start a discussion on the RIPE-list about the notion of remuneration for the RIPE Chair. We were fortunate that Rob B had an employer who didn't mind him devoting unlimited amounts of time to the RIPE community. Now that Rob is no longer with us we need to decide whether we wish to restrict the occupant of the RIPE Chair to being someone who works for such an employer or whether we wish for the community to financially support the occupant of the role. If we decide that we *do* wish them to be supported then the question arises of where this support is to come from. The RIPE Community does not exist as such; it has no financial resources so this question may touch on how we wish the community to evolve. I'm going to throw some ideas into the pool. I don't necessarily support any of these, but offer them as a starting point for discussion. 1. We legally constitute the RIPE community, enabling it to hold financial resources and raise income. 2. We restrict the RIPE chairmanship to those who can afford to support themselves (RIPE NCC would continue to pay expenses) 3. The RIPE NCC pays a salary to the RIPE Chair All of these possibilities have pros and cons, which you can probably work out for yourselves. I invite anyone with an opinion to join the debate. Try to keep your contributions concise and to the point. Try and remain courteous. If you have connected your ripe-list email contact to a trouble-ticket machine then I will call down my curses on your children and your children's children unto the seventh generation. Don't risk it... All the best Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board

4 3

New: Childcare at RIPE 76!
by Amanda Gowland 19 Feb '18

19 Feb '18

Hey there RIPE community parents, As part of the RIPE Diversity Task Force, I'm pleased to announce that we are piloting on-site childcare at RIPE 76 in Marseille (14-18 May 2018). This is part of a wider effort to remove some of the barriers that prevent community members from participating in RIPE Meetings. You can read more about this on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/agowland/hey-parents-in-tech-weve-got-on-site… And read more about the RIPE Diversity Task Force here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/tf/ripe-diversity-task-force If childcare was keeping you from attending a RIPE Meeting in the past, please take advantage of this programme. We'd love to see you in Marseille. Warm regards, Amanda On behalf of the RIPE Diversity Task Force

1 0

ENOG 15 Call for presentation - Moscow 4-5 June 2018
by Sergey Myasoedov 13 Feb '18

13 Feb '18

Dear colleagues, The ENOG 15/RIPE NCC Regional Meeting will take place in Moscow, Russia, on 4-5 June 2018. The call for presentations is now online: https://www.enog.org/enog-15/cfp/ Please submit your talk, including the abstract and draft version of the slides before 1 April for full consideration. Traditionally, key themes for ENOG include peering, operational practices, interconnection and collaboration between Internet Service providers (ISPs). We welcome presentations on challenges, tools, experiences and best practices in the following areas: * Internet Development Trends - New technologies and applications and the evolution of the Internet ecosystem - Internet measurements and Internet development analysis * Internet Coordination, Governance and Regulatory Practices - Internet-related legislation and its impact, multi-stakeholder model, challenges and opportunities - Public initiatives and projects in the areas of Internet governance and coordination, research and deployment of new technologies * Peering and Internet Exchange Points - Business, technical and social aspects of peering and interconnection * Network Operations and Security - Operational experience and best current practices, security trends and technologies, threats overview - DDoS mitigation * Key Internet Technologies - New protocols and technologies: segment routing, QUIC, 5G etc - Real-life IPv6 and DNSSEC deployment experience, trends and statistics - Software defined networking and network automation - Internet of things * Content Delivery - Technology, architecture and business models If you’d like to suggest a presentation for the ENOG 15 agenda, please submit your talk via the online form: https://www.enog.org/submit-topic/submission-form/ Presenters should indicate how much time they will require. In general, the time allocated for the different presentation formats is as follows: - Plenary presentations: 20-25 minute presentation with 5-10 minute discussion - Tutorials and Workshops: Up to three hours (Monday morning) - BoFs: Approximately one hour during evening sessions - Lightning talks: 10 minutes total for both presentation and any discussion For submission guidelines please see: https://www.enog.org/enog-15/cfp/submission-guidelines/ Please submit your proposal in English or Russian. Presentations can be given in either language as we use simultaneous translation. Please note that marketing or commercial content will not be accepted. If you are aware of a good presentation and would like to recommend the speaker, please contact the Programme Committee at <pc(a)enog.org>. Best regards, Sergey Myasoedov On behalf of the ENOG Programme Committee

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: NOGs in the RIPE NCC Service Region
by Mirjam Kuehne 13 Feb '18

13 Feb '18

Dear colleagues, We asked the Network Operators Groups in our service region about how they are organised, funded and run. Find out on RIPE Labs what we learned: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/fergalc/nogs-in-the-ripe-ncc-service-region Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

1 0

NRO EC and ASO AC Joint Response to the 2017 Independent ASO Review Recommendations
by Antony Gollan 12 Feb '18

12 Feb '18

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO). In 2017, the Number Resource Organization (NRO) engaged ITEMS International to conduct the second independent review of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO). The objective of this review was to determine whether the ASO has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, whether any change in structure or operations of the ASO would be desirable to improve its effectiveness in the ICANN structure, and additionally whether the ASO is sufficiently accountable to the Internet number community when carrying out its responsibilities. The result of the ASO Review was published in August 2017, and has been considered by the NRO Executive Council (NRO EC) and by the ASO Address Council (ASO AC). While the final outcome of the Review will be determined through community-wide consultations, the NRO EC and ASO AC have prepared this response to 18 recommendations of the Review Report, including our recommended next steps for addressing each. Recommendation # 1: ICANN should consider updating its Bylaws to reflect the fact that the NRO will, like the GAC, and according to the ASO MoU, provide its own review mechanism for the review of ASO. We recommend proceeding on Recommendation 1. Recommendation # 2: The NRO should consider updating the ASO MoU to reflect the fact that the appropriate section of the New ICANN Bylaws regarding Organizational Reviews is Section 4.4 (previously Article IV, Section 4). We recommend proceeding on Recommendation 2. Recommendation # 3: The NRO should adopt a procedure for conducting periodic reviews of the ASO in line with processes used by the ICANN Organizational Effectiveness Committee. We recommend proceeding on Recommendation 3. Recommendation # 4: The signatories of the ASO MoU should consider updates to the MoU including i) the addition of AFRINIC as a signatory, ii) the removal of Appendix B. iii) updates in connection with the responsibilities of the ASO as a Decisional Participant in the ICANN Empowered Community. We recommend proceeding on i) the addition of AFRINIC as a signatory and ii) the removal of Appendix B. We do not recommend proceeding on iii) updates in connection with the responsibilities of the ASO as a Decisional Participant in the ICANN Empowered Community, as such updates would be duplicative of information already contained in ICANN Bylaws. Recommendation # 5: Upon completion of every independent review of the ASO, the NRO and ICANN should initiate discussions, as per Article 9 of the MoU, to examine results and consequences of their cooperation. The parties should determine if the ASO has a continuing purpose within the ICANN structure, and re-evaluate the MoU accordingly. We recommend proceeding on Recommendation 5. Recommendation # 6: The ASO AC should ensure that procedures are developed for Steps 12, 15 and 16 of the GPDP as described in Attachment A of the ASO MoU. We recommend that the ASO AC should work on the “agreed procedures” referred to in steps 12 and 15 of the GPDP. We recommend that the NRO EC should work on the agreement referred to in step 16 of the GPDP. Recommendation # 7: The ASO should consider the adoption of a single, authoritative description of the GPDP for global numbering policies. The same description of the GPDP should appear in Attachment A of the ASO MoU and the relevant section of the Operating Procedures of the ASO AC (Currently Section 6). We consider that there is the two documents serve different purposes and do not conflict. Attachment A of the ASO MoU is the authoritative definition of the Global Policy Development Process. Section 6 of the ASO AC operation procedures gives more detail about how the ASO AC will implement the GPDP. We suggest asking the ASO AC to edit their operating procedures to clarify the relationship between the GPDP and the operating procedures. Recommendation # 8: With a view to increasing awareness regarding the mission, main operations, and separation of roles between the ASO AC and the NRO EC within the ASO, the NRO should consider the use of more infographics on its website. We agree to consider the use of more infographics on its website. Recommendation # 9: The ASO AC should implement term limits for the positions of Chair and Vice-Chair. We refer recommendation 9 to the ASO AC for their consideration. Recommendation # 10: The ASO AC should ensure that the duties of the Address Council Chair and the Address Council Vice-Chairs need to be added to the ASO AC Operating Procedures. We refer recommendation 10 to the ASO AC for their consideration. Recommendation # 11: The ASO AC should ensure that its internal procedure for the removal of an ICANN Board Director is consistent with Section 7.11 of the New ICANN Bylaws. We agree that there is a need to update procedures for removal of an ICANN Board Director, and note that this may need procedural changes by both the ASO AC and the NRO NC, in view of the NRO’s role in the ICANN Empowered Community. We also note that there are concerns about whether ASO AC members acting in good faith would be indemnified by ICANN, the NRO, or the RIRs. Recommendation # 12: The ASO should establish the NRO Executive Secretary as the ASO Point of Contact (PoC). The ASO AC should establish procedures for forwarding communications to appropriate parties within the ASO. As included in recommendation 12, we agree to review the contact points and procedures for reaching relevant parties in the ASO and NRO. We do not recommend proceeding with establishing the NRO Secretariat as the ASO contact point, but instead recommends reviewing and establishing clear contact points and procedures as appropriate. Recommendation # 13: The ASO MoU should be updated to reflect the new reality of the Empowered Community and specify that the roles and responsibilities within the ASO must be clearly defined. We believe that the Empowered Community is out of the scope of the ASO review, and that updating the MoU is not appropriate as the updates would be duplicative of information already contained in ICANN Bylaws. Recommendation # 14: The ASO AC should either confirm that the designated representative of the ASO on the Empowered Community Administration will be the Chair of the NRO EC, or develop a procedure for appointing another representative. We confirm that the Chair of the NRO EC (or an alternative representative as selected by the NRO EC when necessary) is the Designated Representative of the ASO. The NRO EC is the appropriate body to define the appointment process (rather than the ASO AC) because the Empowered Community is not an ICANN body but a separate organization. Recommendation # 15: ASO AC meetings should be open to the public, except for discussions regarding the selection of individuals for ICANN roles. We refer recommendation 15 to the ASO AC for their consideration. Recommendation # 16: For its internal communications, and for most matters related to the operations of the ASO, the ASO should favour the use of a publicly archived mailing list. In exceptional circumstances, for issues (e.g. Board appointments) that cannot be discussed in public, a non-publicly archived list should be used. We believe that recommendation intends ASO AC when it notes ‘…the ASO should favour the use of a publicly archived mailing list’. We therefore refer recommendation 16 to the ASO AC for their consideration. Recommendation # 17: In the interests of transparency, the ASO website should be updated with recent presentations, contact details and an archive of the activities of both the ASO AC and NRO EC. We recommend proceeding on Recommendation 17. Recommendation # 18: The NRO should initiate a public consultation, involving the five RIR communities, to determine the future structure of the ASO. We agree that “The NRO should initiate a public consultation, involving the five RIR communities, to determine the future structure of the ASO”. You can find this announcement on the NRO website: https://www.nro.net/nro-ec-and-aso-ac-joint-response-to-the-2017-independen… Regards Antony Gollan Communications Specialist RIPE NCC

1 0