Re: [ripe-list] LIR and Member Agreements
+1. I honestly didn't read Denis' lenghty e-mail until i read HPH's message, and thought "oh i really need to go back and read that" :-) Regards, Carlos On Tue, 1 Feb 2022, Hank Nussbacher wrote: I too agree with Denis and Gert but there is no need to accept blame. Denis is not accusing anyone. If anything, we are all to blame for not being as diligent as Denis. Denis has even suggested a way forward: "it will benefit the RIPE NCC to employ someone qualified or experienced in contract law to review and re-write all the NCC's contracts and agreements so they actually say what they were intended to mean." Regards, Hank-- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list
Re: [ripe-list] New Draft RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP) document - for your review
Hi, Afaik, just the dutch court system, if anyone wants to enter that path... Carlos On Thu, 25 Nov 2021, Cynthia Revström via ripe-list wrote: Or maybe I am mistaken and we actually have RIPE PDP courts and police to enforce these laws and I have just missed them. -Cynthia On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:42 PM Cynthia Revström wrote: Can you please stop calling it law?It is NOT a law! -Cynthia On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:41 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: That?s my point, we are actually writing ?our law? El 25/11/21 13:39, "ripe-list en nombre de Cynthia Revström via ripe-list" escribió: But this is not law, it is a procedural document, and procedural documents can include suggestions even if national laws often don't. The argument that it can't contain suggestions just because normal national laws often don't, is extremely silly. -Cynthia On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:36 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: That?s my point, we are actually writing ?our law? Saludos, Jordi @jordipalet El 25/11/21 13:34, "Cynthia Revström" escribió: Yes but this is NOT law as Sander said, we are not writing a law here. This is a procedural document in a community, not a law. -Cynthia On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:30 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote: Hi Sander, Just count how many proposals have reached consensus even if they have not got a previous discussion in the list. Is a matter of numbers. Law != suggestions, law must be strict and avoid as much as possible subjective interpretations. El 25/11/21 13:17, "ripe-list en nombre de Sander Steffann" escribió: Jordi, > 4) The text about the "idea" is wrong and untrue. Past experience doesn't show that. No, *your* past behaviour doesn't show that. You just dumping policy proposals on a mailing list without discussing the idea first is probably one of the reasons why this paragraph is included, and I STRONGLY support it. > There have been many policy proposals that didn't followed that process and they are actual policies. The PDP is a set of rules, strict rules of a process, not "rules and suggestions". We can't mix rules and suggestions in a formal PDP text. Yes we can, we are not writing law. Cheers, Sander To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-list ** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contain
Re: [ripe-list] Confidentiality, or that lack thereof
(please see below)
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:26:12AM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote:
I have always understood that the confidentiality requirement was
intended to apply to any business information supplied to justify an
allocation of resources and not the outcome, which is published in the
RIPE Database and elsewhere. I understood that the goal was to assure
the businesses operating networks that chatty staff would not gossip
about what those businesses planned but had not announced.
Leo has been around about as long as I have - and his understanding of
the reasoning matches mine.
Let me illustrate this a bit: "back in the days", ISPs were given IPv4
allocations based on network deployment *plans*. Like "we intend to
expand to neighbouring country , cities , and , and
we expect to have customers there by mid next year" - this
sort of information is something I would not like my competitors to
have, and thus I always found it reassuring that the NCC would not
share these strategic details.
The end result ("1.2.0.0/16 allocated to XYZ inc.") is - and needs to
be - public, so some coarse information about growth plans is/was visible,
but not the details.
Hi Gert, Leo, All,
This is perfectly understandable.
But i guess the issue is dramatically different -- it's about knowing
** WHO ** is really the ISP, i.e. which company from which jurisdiction.
Cheers,
Carlos
Gert Doering
-- LIR contact since too many years
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE WG Chairs Selection and Terms
Hi, (last msg for today) On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Jim Reid wrote: (...) I have recently been told about the "a team of one" concept... [Citation needed.] What has the WG(s) in question said or done about that? Different context, not RIPE or RIPE NCC related. But theoretically, if the WG is only the Chair(s), it's still a WG. There should of course be a healthy replacement of WG leadership: enough to ensure things don?t get stale Depends on "things". In some cases stale is certainly a "feature". [Citation needed.] What have you or the rest of the WG done about that? Has the WG put forward new candidates? Did you or others who share your view volunteer? If i understand the Chair role correctly, the Chair steers the WG, and maintains a neutral position. At least that's what i've seen from most of the RIPE WG Chairs over the years. Not everybody plays by "knowing when to step down"... [Citation needed.] Have you ever suggested to someone they've been around for too long and should step down? What was their response? Did you have those conversations with the WG?s other co-chairs (or the RIPE Chair)? What was their response? No. Saying "Not everybody plays by knowing when to step down? is all very well. It would help a lot if could you please cite actual examples instead of vague perceptions. For me, it's not a vague perception, it's a fact. The sentence starts with "Not everybody". But you also get the other way around: the person thinks it's time to step down, and people around him/her think otherwise. Let?s have a clear understanding of the problem statement before deciding the solutions. A, again, it loops onto "There's no problem statement!". Can you share the full flowchart? :) Regards, Carlos
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE WG Chairs Selection and Terms
Hi, On Fri, 12 Feb 2021, Jim Reid wrote: On 12 Feb 2021, at 11:26, Martin Winter wrote: I'm prefer to find a solution without limits on terms. IMO, there?s no one-size-fits-all solution to this issue. It?s unwise (and probably impossible) to try to create one. WGs should be left to decide for themselves what works best for them. Sometimes, that?ll mean term limits. Sometimes it won?t. I can understand that. However, that impacts the "WG Chair Collective". Not all WGs are the same. And for a few of them, continuity will be far more important than other considerations. I have recently been told about the "a team of one" concept... There should of course be a healthy replacement of WG leadership: enough to ensure things don?t get stale Depends on "things". In some cases stale is certainly a "feature". but not so much that continuity or institutional memory gets lost. That balance and those trade-offs will be different in each WG. Which is why each WG should get to decide how they handle this. Not everybody plays by "knowing when to step down"... Term limits in some WGs like DNS or IoT are fine IMO. For WGs like Coop or AA (say) who interact more with the authorities, not so much. Disagree. We should also think very, very carefully before imposing policies top-down. RIPE, like most Internet institutions, has always used bottom-up policy development. It should stick with that model because it produces the best outcomes. I thought RIPE is/was a Community. RIPE NCC is an (not for profit, formal) Internet institution. Cheers, Carlos
Re: [ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday
On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote: Hi Nigel, I've the feeling that in part, the lack of volunteers is due to the fact that existing ones can continue in perpetuity. Hi, Just let me share a thought about this: "existing ones can continue in pertetuity" For me long standing members of this community are appreciated! I really miss reading those community members that reached the retirement age and reduced (or ceased, *sigh*) their participation. Experience is valuable. Advices are valuable. What is *extremely* strange to me is people not accepting that others may not accept their advice. If following a given advice was "mandatory" then it would be an "order", not an advice. Cheers, Carlos ps: i'm not over my 5 messages/day quota, or am i...? :-)
Re: [ripe-list] excuses for my response to provocations in the list yesterday
Hi, Please see inline. On Wed, 10 Feb 2021, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote: Hi all, (...) It is even more sad that some of those provocations come from people that are (or have been) chairs of WGs and I think they must be exemplary. It looks like some of them believe they are kings. Maybe one more thing to change in the PDP is a maximum number of terms to avoid this. I completely support this! 2 or 3 terms, plus a "freeze period" (1 term? 1 year?) to avoid cases where a chair "jumps" to another WG. I think also sanctions of the AUP should be stricter in those cases and this shows that also we are missing in the PDP a procedure for recalling chairs. For those that aren?t aware, this just happened in AFRINIC (a Recall Committee has decided that both cochairs are recalled with immediate effect, in short because they violated the PDP and took decisions or attributions beyond what is set in the PDP). I think the general idea is not to have frequent "impeachments", but establish a process where a WG chair change (against his/her own will, when they violate the PDP) isn't halted at some point by one of its friends. Regards, Carlos
Re: [ripe-list] repeated and continued PDP violation - WG chairs delaying or denying proposal publication - new policy proposal "Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure"
Hi,
Now i'm confused! Which proposal exactly?
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/current-proposals/current-policy-proposals
...seems to be empty!
Regards,
Carlos
On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, Ond?ej Surý wrote:
Just to make it explicit. I disagree with the proposal.
--
Ond?ej Surý (He/Him)
> On 7. 2. 2021, at 14:06, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list
wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Across the years, I've suffered this situation several times and I think this
community must not allow it anymore and I wish the PDP has explicit actions
against those situations, so they don't happen over and over.
>
> Briefly, in several situation I've written policy proposals, and the chairs
of the WG, tried to convince me to not publish it, or actually decided not to
publish it, or delayed it.
>
> Of course, this is a clear violation of the PDP (RIPE-710). The PDP states:
> "Discussions may be started by anyone at any time. Participants are welcome to
discuss broad ideas as well as to make detailed policy proposals"
>
> Also:
> "A proposal is discussed publicly in the relevant RIPE Working Group (WG)[1]. The
proposal is usually submitted via the chair of that WG."
>
> Actually, and since many years, "usually", you submit the proposal to the
Policy Officer and if you already know the appropriate WG, you copy to the WG chairs. It is
normal that the publication is delayed for a few days, as the WG
chairs can provide some inputs, the staff as well (including editorial
suggestions), questions to the staff, even the Board, etc., etc.
>
> HOWEVER, there is no way for the WG chairs to delay or deny a publication or
reject a proposal (unless is clearly out of the scope of the WG).
>
> Actual specific example of the situation I'm facing (approximate dates, just
to show the unacceptable delay in a policy proposal publication):
>
> 1) 9th September 2020: Anti-abuse-wg chairs decided to declare non-consensus
in proposal 2019-04 and I announce that I've asked them for more details and if
I'm not satisfied, I will start an appeal. A couple of community members,
in private, tell me that it will not happen. I re-read the PDP and get
convinced that they're right, but I must do it anyway.
>
> 2) I write a policy proposal ("Ensure Neutrality of PDP Appeals Procedure")
to update the PDP to avoid this happening in the future (so clearly knowing that it will be
relevant for my appeal). Submitted formally on 5th October.
This proposal is sent to the Policy Officer and copied the chairs-team (as the PDP update
is done via the "plenary" WG).
>
> 3) In the following few days/weeks, there are some updates of the policy
proposal, thanks to the inputs of the Policy Officer and even there is a request
to the Board for their confirmation in one detail (no longer relevant in the
attached version).
>
> 4) At the end of October, as a result of several inputs from the Policy
Officer and the Board I've a final version, which however, gets new inputs from
the chairs-team so my very last version is really final by 12 of November and I
ask for immediate publication.
>
> 5) Chairs-team try to convince me that they don't agree with a paragraph from
the proposal on December 1st, also they indicate that Xmas is a bad timing (which
never minds because the discussion phase could be extended if there are
no inputs, etc.).
>
> 6) Even if there have been several requests from my side for publication (we
have been discussing a parallel topic for a report on the appeal process, which
doesn't change my perspective on my proposal), I've asked several times
for the immediate publication, which has not yet been done.
>
> I agree that a month, for an initial discussion with the staff, editorial
inputs, etc., is acceptable, even if most of those discussions could actually
happen just in 1-2 weeks, because they could take place in parallel, instead of
sequentially as it has been the case. However, we have got 3 extra months
(November, December, January), and the proposal is NOT YET PUBLISHED. Even
worst, the last times I asked for the publication, I got NO RESPONSE from the
chairs.
>
> As a consequence, in addition to make sure that this NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN (I
mean in general, no violation of the PDP), I attach the proposal, so the staff,
*following the mandate of the PDP* (not the chairs, which have no voice on
this according to the PDP) publish it IMMEDIATELY and we can start a discussion
of it, immediately.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
>
>
> **
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure,
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
partially, including attac
Re: [ripe-list] RIPE Working Group Chair Collective Meeting Summary
Greetings, On Tue, 9 Feb 2021, Jim Reid wrote: On 9 Feb 2021, at 11:33, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ripe-list wrote: it may seem that ARIN and RIPE have more active participation, but if you look at it as % of membership, we are actually "worst" than other RIRs! RIPE != RIPE NCC. RIPE doesn?t have a membership. And it?s not an RIR. You?re right that participation levels are low but there is no practical way to improve that. Yes, there is! What about stopping to mock people that make their first comment? Or stopping rants against people that join the lists because they are interested in supporting a specific policy change? If there was, it would have been done. No, because that is not, unfortunately, in the best interest of several people! We can?t force people to post to the lists or come to meetings or submit policy proposals. I agree it's not the best timeframe to discuss "come to meetings", but i must note that "come to meetings" has a price tag. Luckly "come to meetings" is not a requeriment to participate in the PDP! And about "submit policy proposals": when people see policies being shot down simply because _some_ people think all is marvellous (for their own best interest!) and the policies don't need _any_ change. What's the motivation to try to improve something? This is a much, much wider problem in society. Countries can?t even get enough of their citizens to vote in elections. If people choose not to vote, they let others decide on their behalf. At this point i worry a lot more about "electronic voting systems" that can twist voters' votes. -- just to be clear: i'm NOT talking about the system used by the RIPE NCC. A few weeks ago, I was already considering to send a new policy proposal to make some other changes in the PDP. I will start working on that I think you need to pause for a few months and then think *very* carefully before proceeding Jordi. This is a fine example of what i was writing above! Is this some kind of warning or menace??!?!?!? You also need to pay attention to the advice that you appear to have previously ignored: for instance the need for clear problem statements. You seem to think you have given a clear problem statement(s). Nobody else does. You also need to accept that what you think IS NOT a "clear problem statement" may be a very clear problem statement for others. So please, don't speak on MY behalf, and let the PDP flow! Regards, Carlos
