Hi Nikolas, where in the policies are annulments possible?
Elvis On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 06:30 Nikolas Pediaditis <npediad...@ripe.net> wrote: > Dear Sergey, > > In this case, the transfer was ‘reverted’, meaning that the registration > details prior to the transfer were restored. We see this action as an > annulment of the original transfer and not a second transfer requiring > implementation of the 24-month rule. > > With regards to implementing policies and procedures, we apply them as > equally and neutrally as possible, but we also consider it reasonable and > sensible to take extraordinary circumstances into account. On this > occasion, RIPE NCC Management reviewed a case in which new information had > come to light and it decided to act as it saw necessary and appropriate. > > > Kind regards, > > Nikolas Pediaditis > Registration Services and Policy Development Manager > RIPE NCC > > > > On 31 Dec 2019, at 21:13, Sergey Myasoedov via anti-abuse-wg < > anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> wrote: > > > > Hi Marco, > > > >> Later, we received new information from both organisations about this > transfer. It was then followed by an official request in which both parties > asked us to revert the changes made to our registry and return the IP > addresses back to their previous holders. After an internal review, we > reverted the registration of the addresses. > > > > Can you give some more details on the fact that policy requirements for > holding the resources for 24 months after the transfer was suspended? > > > >> While we cannot disclose more details publicly, we would like to > emphasise that we took this action within our mandate to maintain an > up-to-date and correct Internet number resource registry, and as a neutral > and impartial organisation. > > > > The last sentence proves that there are rules and there are rules. How > the NCC can be a neutral organisation while policy isn't applied to all > members in an equal manner? > > > > Thank you and have a happy holidays. > > > > > > -- > > Kind regards, > > Sergey Myasoedov > > > >> On 31 Dec 2019, at 09:28, Marco Schmidt <mschm...@ripe.net> wrote: > >> > >> Dear colleagues, > >> > >> We would like to provide some clarification on this case. > >> > >> Earlier this year, we transferred a large number of IP addresses from > the autonomous nonprofit organisation "Russian Scientific-Research > Institute for Public Networks” in the Russian Federation to the Reliable > Communications s.r.o in the Czech Republic. > >> This change was processed by the RIPE NCC in full compliance with RIPE > Policies and the RIPE NCC’s published procedures. > >> > >> Later, we received new information from both organisations about this > transfer. It was then followed by an official request in which both parties > asked us to revert the changes made to our registry and return the IP > addresses back to their previous holders. After an internal review, we > reverted the registration of the addresses. > >> > >> While we cannot disclose more details publicly, we would like to > emphasise that we took this action within our mandate to maintain an > up-to-date and correct Internet number resource registry, and as a neutral > and impartial organisation. > >> > >> Kind regards and Happy New Year, > >> > >> Marco Schmidt > >> Registration Services and Policy Development Assistant Manager > >> RIPE NCC > >> > >> > >> On 29/12/2019 06:45, Randy Bush wrote: > >>>> It would be nice if RIPE NCC could provide as part of its annual > >>>> report a list of incidents of this nature so we have an idea of how > >>>> wide-spread this is - or not. > >>> as i try not to indulge in schadenfreude, i don't have much use for > this > >>> information. > >>> > >>> we spent some time in this space in rotterdam. the presos were well > >>> done, but not my cup of coffee. i am sure there were others who found > >>> it fascinating. i guess that's what makes the world go 'round. > >>> > >>> randy > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- This message was sent from a mobile device. Some typos may be possible.
