- ripe-list - mailman.ripe.net

RIPE NCC PGP-Key expired
by Dominic Schallert 01 Mar '18

01 Mar '18

Dear colleagues, we noticed that the PGP-Key for ncc(a)ripe.net <mailto:ncc@ripe.net> (Key ID: C6839AEF) has expired on the 2nd of February 2018. As of writing, no new public keys have been published over at https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/contact/ripe-ncc-pgp-keys <https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/contact/ripe-ncc-pgp-keys> Looking ahead to the rollout of the EU GDPR in May 2018, it might be beneficial to allow for PGP-encrypted communication between LIRs and RIPE NCC, besides the existing PGP-based database authentication mechanism. Kind Regards Dominic Schallert schallert.com e.U. | Hauptstraße 35b, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria FN: 440372g | UID: ATU66209211 | Gerichtsstand: Feldkirch Tel.: +43 680 146 1947 | Fax: +43 134 242 642 616 www.schallert.com <http://www.schallert.com/> | office(a)schallert.com <mailto:office@schallert.com>

1 0

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

IANA Numbering Services Review Committee seeks input - 30-day public comments period
by Nurani Nimpuno 09 Feb '18

09 Feb '18

Dear colleagues, As you may be aware, as a result of the successful IANA Stewardship transition [1] in 2016, the IANA Numbering Services are today being managed through an SLA between ICANN and the five RIRs. IANA Numbering Services Review Committee ---------------------------------------- The Internet Number Community, produced a proposal [2] on the IANA Stewardship transition, outlining the concept of such an SLA [3]. The proposal also called for the establishment of an IANA Numbering Services Review Committee (IANA RC) [4] to advice and assist the RIRs in the review of the IANA Numbering Services. The IANA RC was established in 2016 and is composed of representatives from each RIR region. IANA Numbering Services Performance ----------------------------------- The IANA services are today provided by Public Technical Identifiers (PTI) [5] which as of March 2017, publishes monthly performance reports on the IANA Numbering Services: https://www.iana.org/performance/numbers Based on these monthly performance reports, the five RIRs have produced an 2017 IANA Performance Matrix Summary Report (for the period of March - December 2017): https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/IANA-RC-Annual-Summary-Matrix.pdf The IANA RC report ------------------ The IANA RC will publish an annual report as advice to the NRO EC with its evaluation of the IANA Numbering services. The report will be based on the IANA Performance Matrix Summary Report, as well as any input gathered on the performance from the global number community. 30-day public comment period ---------------------------- As part of the open, transparent, and bottom-up spirit of the number community, the IANA RC is launching a public comment period of 30 days, seeking any comments or input from the community on the IANA numbering services performance. The IANA RC encourages all members of the Internet number community to review the public IANA Performance Matrix Summary Report. Comments on the IANA service performance should be sent to: <iana-performance(a)nro.net> The public comment period ends on Sunday 11 March at 23:59 UTC. Next steps ----------- All public comments will be published on the IANA RC website, and will be considered as input to the final report by the IANA. At the end of the 30-day public comment period, the IANA RC will meet and evaluate all input to the final report. The IANA RC report will be published on the IANA RC website: https://www.nro.net/iana-numbering-services-review-committee/ Best regards, Nurani Nimpuno, IANA RC chair Jason Schiller, IANA RC vice-chair -- References: ----------- [1] IANA Stewardship Transition Archive https://www.nro.net/iana-oversight/archive/ [2] Number Community Proposal https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/ICG-RFP-Number-Resource-Proposal.pdf [3] The SLA for the IANA Numbering Services https://www.nro.net/updated-5-2-and-signature-version-of-the-sla-for-the-ia… [4] IANA Numbering Services Review Committee https://www.nro.net/iana-numbering-services-review-committee/ [5] Public Technical Identifiers (PTI) https://pti.icann.org Further reading: ---------------- Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal Team (CRISP Team) https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated… IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) https://www.ianacg.org Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-transition-proposal-final.p…

1 0