October 2003 - address-policy-wg

Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised Draft Document for review: "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region"
by Janos Zsako 19 Oct '03

19 Oct '03

> From leo(a)ripe.net Sat Oct 18 21:41:55 2003 Dear Leo, > >>> "An AW can be applied to an End User network once per 12-month period. > >>> This means an LIR can make more than one assignment to an End User > >>> _in_any_such_12_months'_period, but the total amount of address space > >> I think this should be added to improve clarity but... > >> > >>> cannot be larger than the LIR's AW. An LIR's AW is considered unused > >>>on > >>> the anniversary of the first (?!? I would think _last_) assignment to > >>> the End User._After_the_exhaustion_of_the_AW, the LIR may only assign > >>> additional addresses to the same End User after approval from the RIPE > >>> NCC. > >>> > >>> (In one of the sentences above I have the impression that first should > >>> be changed to last - did I misunderstood something?) > >> ... I think the ambiguity in the wording here reflects the > >>ambiguity in the policy. We could update the wording to use the word > >>"last" but that would make the policy more strict than it is at the > >>moment. At some point it would be useful to review and rationalise > >>the current AW policy. It is fairly complicated to document and so > >>fairly documented to use. It would be good (after publishing this > >>updated document, I hope) to take a new look at this part of the policy. > > > >I quote below the relevant part of RIPE-234: > > > >" > >5.2.5.2 Assignment Window for End User Assignments > > > >An LIR can apply their Assignment Window to an End User network only once in > >any 12-month period. This means that if an LIR makes more than one assignment > >to an organisation, the total amount of address space assigned with their AW > >in any twelve month period may not exceed the LIR's AW size. The LIR may only > >assign additional addresses to the same organisation after approval from the > >RIPE NCC. > >" > > > >In my view, this means that I may for example assign an AW worth of > >address space to the End User on 1 January of every year (assuming > >that I make no further assignments during the year). > > > >I also understand that the AW is unused at a moment in time, if at that > >moment I am allowed to assign an AW worth of address space (to that > >particular End User). > > > >In the above example, let's assume that I started assigning address space > >to the End User on 1 January 2000. The last time I have therefore assigned > >to them was 1 January 2003. If I read the text of the Draft, this > >means that my AW (with respect to that End User) is UNUSED, as it has > >to be considered unused starting 1 January 2001 (the anniversary of > >the FIRST assignement). My undertsanding is that it should read "LAST", > >therefore the AW would have to be considered unused starting 1 January > >2004. > > > >Did I misunderstand something? > > I think we may have been saying the same thing in different ways. Correct. This is what happened. > The AW > is refreshed on the anniversary of the first assignment. However, the > way we look at it is that assignments following the first assignment are > subtracted from the 'refreshing' and they have their own anniversaries. > > For example, if I had a /21 AW and made a /23 assignment to a customer > on 1 January 2003 I would have a /22 and a /23 left from my AW for that > customer for the rest of the year. If I assigned the same customer > another /23 on 1 April, 1 July and 1 October my AW (for that > organisation) would return to /23 on 1 January 2004. It would not return > to /21 because there were three subsequent assignments each of which has > an anniversary. > > If there's agreement that this is correct then we can update the text > for the policy document to something clearer. I agree with what you detailed in your reply. Yes, please do make the document more clear, as I for one misunderstood it. Thanks and regards, Janos

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Revised Draft Document for review: "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region"
by Janos Zsako 18 Oct '03

18 Oct '03

> From address-policy-wg-admin(a)ripe.net Sun Oct 5 22:15:17 2003 Dear all, > As indicated at the last working group meeting, I would very much like to > se POSITIVE feedback from the WG before we make final policy: > > > Feedback on this document should be sent to the address-policy-wg@localhost > > mailing list for a period of two weeks. > > > > This review period will end on TWO WEEKS FROM ANNOUNCEMENT. > > Who can committ to read and send their comments within this timeline ? At RIPE 46 I was one of those who raised their hands when Hans Petter asked whether anybody volunteers to comment the document if it is circulated again on the list. Please find below my comments. First of all I would like to congratulate those who made the effort of re-writing the policies document. I think they did a very good job. The restructuring seems good to me. I have some specific comments, questions, and sugestions respectively: 1. In paragraph 2.0 I suggest mentioning RFC3330 too. (It gives further details about the address space usage than RFC1918 and RFC1112.) 2. Also in paragraph 2.0, point 2 I suggest adding a new sentence, which in my view makes it easier to understand the reference to RFC2993 (I included in the quoted text my sentence using underscores instead of spaces for easier identification): "...Hosts using these addresses cannot directly be reached from the Internet. _Such_connectivity_is_enabled_by_using_the_technique_known_as_ Network_Address_Translation_(NAT)_. Private addresses restrict a network so that its hosts only have partial Internet connectivity..." (of course, the exact wording itself can be changed). 3. In paragraph 4.0, at the end of second paragraph I suggest adding: "...Registration data (range, contact information, status etc.) must be correct _at_all_times_(i.e._they_have_to_be_maintained)." 4. In paragraph 6.1. I have a question and a suggestion related to the statement: "If a request needs to be approved by the RIPE NCC or if information is required in the event of an audit, the information must be submitted on a current version of the request form found at:" It is clear that in case of a new request that needs to be approved, information must be submitted on the current form. The question I have is related to the audit of a prior assignment: does the LIR have to produce the documentation in the _current_ version of the form? I would think that producing the documentation on the form used _at_the_time_of the assignment would be acceptable. If so, it may be good to slightly rephrase the above to reflect this. 5. I have the impression that the AW applied to an End User network (paragraph 7.0) is not clear enough, so I suggest adding a couple of new words: "An AW can be applied to an End User network once per 12-month period. This means an LIR can make more than one assignment to an End User _in_any_such_12_months'_period, but the total amount of address space cannot be larger than the LIR's AW. An LIR's AW is considered unused on the anniversary of the first (?!? I would think _last_) assignment to the End User._After_the_exhaustion_of_the_AW, the LIR may only assign additional addresses to the same End User after approval from the RIPE NCC. (In one of the sentences above I have the impression that first should be changed to last - did I misunderstood something?) 6. In the first paragraph of 9.0 I suggest repeating "or sub-allocated" in order to avoid any possible mis-interpretation (i.e. that sub-allocations do not necessarily have to be returned): "LIRs are allocated PA address space. They sub-allocate and assign this to downstream networks. If a downstream network or End User changes its service provider, the address space assigned _or_sub-allocated_ by the previous service provider will have to be returned and the network renumbered." 7. I have a question regarding the value "NOT-SET" of the status attribute (paragraph 9.0). The document states that _new_ objects cannot be created with this attribute. I would expect the database to also reject updates that have such an attribute. Is this the way the database behaves? If yes, it may be useful to mention this here ( I suggest something like: "Objects cannot be created or updated with this value".) That is all for now. I hope you will find these useful. Best regards, Janos

3 4

Questions on Provider Independent IPv4 addresses,
by Thomas.Levy＠alcatel.fr 17 Oct '03

17 Oct '03

Hello, I read with interest the ripe-234 document on IPv4 address allocation. It raised me the following questions on PI addresses: 1) Usage of PI addresses is not recommended by RIPE. I don't want to raise a debate on this point. However, I would be interested in knowing the reasons for this. Is it for routing purpose? 2) How could I find statistics on PI allocated addresses (by RIPE or globally)? Please apologise, if it is not the best appropriate place, where to ask such questions. I looked for the answer on the RIPE web site. But, I couldn't find the information. Regards, Thomas Levy

3 2

[Nro-comments] Revised FAQ (fwd)
by Hans Petter Holen 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 04:42:10 -0400 From: Ray Plzak <plzak(a)arin.net> To: nro-comments(a)apnic.net Subject: [Nro-comments] Revised FAQ Below is a revised list of FAQ concerning the NRO MoU and the ASO MoU. Thwy will be posted on the RIR websites. Ray ************************************************************ Frequently Asked Questions about the NRO MoU and ASO MoU 1. Why can't the RIRs and ICANN sit down and discuss their differences? The RIRs and ICANN have been very actively engaged in discussions and both parties have taken every opportunity to keep the dialogue open and continuous. These discussions have been constructive and productive and have included face-to-face meetings as well as teleconferences. 2. Why are the RIRs trying to replace ICANN? The RIRs are firmly committed to ICANN and to its viability. Within the ICANN framework, the RIRs have two objectives which they see as of paramount importance to the addressing community. a. Protection of the unallocated number resource pool (IPv4, IPv6, and ASN). Access to the unallocated number resources pool by the RIRs is controlled by global policy. b. Protection of the policy development process so that policies cannot be imposed top down on the community. Neither the ICANN Board nor any of the RIR Boards can impose policy. 3. Does the NRO replace ICANN? No. One of the functions that the NRO is intended to provide is to undertake if necessary those IANA functions that pertain to the management of number resources. The NRO is not being structured as a potential 'complete' ICANN replacement in the event of failure of ICANN. The consideration here was that in such an event it was considered probable that the various IANA functions would be undertaken by those with a direct interest in each particular functional area. 4. Does the NRO replace the ASO? No. The NRO is a stand alone body that will negotiate the ASO MoU with ICANN. Upon implementation certain aspects of the NRO will become part of the ASO. For example, the NRO Numbers Council will become the ASO Address Council. Other aspects, such as the Executive Council will not become part of the ASO but will continue to represent the RIRs acting in concert. 5. Why do we need another layer of bureaucracy? We don't! The NRO is not another layer of bureaucracy. Within this proposed framework the essential elements of interaction between the RIRs and ICANN remain unaltered. ICANN continues to operate the unallocated Internet number resource registries. The Board of ICANN has the continued ability to ratify proposed global number resource policies. An Address Council continues to undertake a role as a source of advice to the Board of ICANN on Number Resource matters, as well as shepherding proposed global address policies through ICANN for ratification. 6. If the NRO doesn't replace ICANN or the ASO or change anything in the current structure, what does it do? How does it change the relationship between ICANN and the RIRs? The NRO is an interface for organizations outside of the RIRs to interface directly with them at a single point instead of dealing with each RIR separately. For example this allows ICANN to interact directly on non policy items such as the ICANN budget and service contracts. Currently, ICANN must deal with each individual RIR on such matters. The NRO provides a similar single interface to the RIRs for other organizations, such as the IETF, on Internet number resource administration issues. The NRO also provides a visible framework for existing cooperative joint activities in which the RIRs are already engaged. Such activities include the administration of upper level reverse DNS domains. Future activities of this nature will also be undertaken within the framework of the NRO, such as a common whois interface to RIR data. 7. Are open and accessible processes being used in the development of the NRO MoU and the ASO MoU? In both cases an open and accessible policy process is being used. The RIR Boards, exercising their policy process and fiduciary responsibilities, have drafted two documents and have placed them in the public domain for comment. The RIRs are undertaking to organize the NRO for the purpose of providing an organizational structure to support the various inter-RIR cooperative arrangements that have evolved over the last three years as the RIRs have worked in concert in both technical and policy areas. The comment period is to elicit any comments that the regional communities may have in regard to this formalization of already existing practices. It is currently proposed that the NRO MoU will be signed at the end of the comment period, with this proposed action being dependant on an assessment of comments received in this period. In the case of the ASO MoU, after the regional community comment period it will be presented to ICANN as a draft document for their consideration. It is expected that there will be some negotiation between ICANN and the NRO after which time the negotiated draft will again be placed in the public domain. Of course anytime during this period any one is more than welcome to comment. 8. Will this proposal dramatically change the relationship between ICANN and the RIRs? Neither the NRO MoU nor the ASO MoU will dramatically change the relationship between ICANN and the RIRs. In the case of the NRO, it is intended to improve the relationship, as ICANN will have a single consistent point of contact for such matters as budget and service contracts. In the case of the ASO MoU the biggest change is additional protections for the bottom up policy process, as the proposed policy development process will prevent the ICANN board from exercising a veto by direct action or by non-action on any policy proposal. It further protects the process by preventing the ICANN board from making policy and directing it down to the addressing community. 9. Will the NRO MoU and the ASO MoU have any wide-ranging impacts on technical coordination, planning, and administration of addressing and numbering policy? The NRO MoU and the ASO MoU will have impact in some areas, but it will be only to strengthen the protection of the unallocated number resource pool and the bottom up policy process. Areas not changed: a. The bottom up policy process from the addressing community to the RIR fora will not change. b. The bottom up policy process for global policy from the addressing community to the ASO AC will not change. c. The administration of policy between the RIRs and the community in their respective service regions will not change. d. The administration of addressing policy between the IANA and the RIRs will not change. Areas that will change under these proposals: a. The ICANN board will not be able to make and direct top down addressing policy. b. The ICANN board will not be able to veto a global policy proposal by direct or indirect means. c. Activities where the RIRs act in concert will be strengthened by the formalizing of an already existing relationship. This will occur in such areas as policy harmonization, technical coordination, and planning. d. Activities such as technical coordination and administration of policy where the IANA must interact jointly with the RIRs will be simplified as the IANA will now have a single interface point. 10. How transparent are the activities of the NRO Executive Council going to be? Every meeting of the NRO Executive Council will be transparent as the agenda and minutes of each meeting will be published. 11. How will the appeals process work? The appeals process is an advisory process., designed to provide advice in regards to the operation of policy process. It is not designed to decide the merits of a policy, but rather, to examine the policy process in regards to any global policy for which a constituency of the addressing community is aggrieved. The Advisory Appeals Panel (AAP) may hear complaints regarding the activities of any or several RIRs, the NRO or and NRO sub-organization such as the Numbers Council. The AAP may dismiss frivolous, repetitive or nuisance complaints with without further review. The AAP decision is intended to serve as a persuasive advisory opinion and therefore it will not provide any basis for legal action in any jurisdiction. The appeals process does not alter the appeals process in any way within the responsibility of any RIR, and no appeals prerogatives or options are being ceded by the RIRs to the NRO under this proposal. 12. How is the Advisory Appeals Panel formed? The Advisory Appeals Panel (AAP) will consist on one (1) member from each RIR service region. They will be selected by the NRO Executive Council. Members of the AAP cannot be an employee of an RIR nor a member of any RIR Board. They will be selected based upon their knowledge of the Internet community in general and the addressing community in particular. The AAP will adopt such policies and procedures that are necessary to make it an accessible, open, transparent, and documented. These policies and procedures will include such things as voluntary or requested recusal of panel members, procedures for reporting to the NRO Executive Council, and procedures to address any allegation of fraudulent or dishonest conduct by panel members. 13. Can the Advisory Appeals Panel be effective? Yes. It is intended that the members of the Advisory Appeals Panel (AAP) will be well known and respected members of the Internet community. Although their decisions will carry no basis for legal action, it is anticipated that their advice will be the product of a thorough and stringent process of investigation and review and that any advice that the panel may provide will be well grounded. 14. These documents will have long-lasting effects. It is hoped that this is indeed the case. It is the intent of these documents to put into place provisions that will protect the unallocated number resource pool and the bottom up policy process thus contributing directly to the security and stability of the Internet for years to come. It is expected that as the Internet environment changes over time that these documents may have to be revised, thus it is expected that they will be reviewed from time to time. _______________________________________________ Nro-comments mailing list Nro-comments(a)apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/nro-comments

1 0

Re: [Nro-comments] Some comments on the text (fwd)
by Hans Petter Holen 16 Oct '03

16 Oct '03

FYI: Some further clearifications on the NRO proposal -hph ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:59:51 +0200 From: Frode Greisen <frode(a)greisen.net> To: sabine jaume <jaume(a)renater.fr>, nro-comments(a)apnic.net Cc: Hans Petter Holen <hpholen(a)tiscali.no>, "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <woeber(a)cc.univie.ac.at> Subject: Re: [Nro-comments] Some comments on the text Dear Sabine, > On 14/10/03 8:39, "sabine jaume" <jaume(a)renater.fr> wrote: > Dear all, > > After reading the NRO proposal and the ASO MoU, here are some comments > on the text, which to my opinion need clarification for better > understanding and/or to avoid misunderstanding. > > > NRO Proposal > > Chapter 1 : > The creation of the NRO doesn't need ICANN's acceptance : as far as RIR > sign the agreement it is considered in force. Did I understand it correctly? yes, this is correct. > > The signature includes RIRs who are signatories : what about any new > possible RIR? I would add here a reference to chapter 3 in case a new > RIR wants to sign the agreement later on. As you say, the intention is that new RIRs can join with equal rights. As the text stands, Chapter 3 provides for the inclusion of new RIRs. Just as the situation exists today, the new RIR must meet objective criteria and must sign the MoU. > > Chapter 2 : > This description is fully in line with the operationnal business of RIRs. > > Chapter 4 : > Here I find an inconsistency with chapter 2 : indeed if the NRO has an > operationnal role, how can it also intervene in policy making processes. > This is how I interpret the fact that the NRO Number Council is under > the responsability of the NRO Exec Council (see chapter 6). see comment below. > > Incorporation : under which law? We felt no need to define law and location before a decision to incorporate. This will be agreed by the RIR signatories at that time. > > Chapter 6 : > Here is where policy-making process- and day to day busines of > RIRs are mixed. > What happens if the Number Council makes proposals > following bottom up process which are rejected by the NRO (see comment > on ASO MoU text)? The Executive Council is responsible for external communication but in the (probably most likely) scenario policy ratification is done by ICANN as defined in the ASO MoU and the Executive Council will not make policy. It is only in the stand-alond scenario after and ICANN failure that the Executive council would in reality ratify or reject. The sense of the document is that the Executive council would then act in the role of the ICANN board as far as address policy ratification is concerned and would only base its decision on whether due processes were followed or not. In order to avoid duplication, all the relevant procedures defined in the ASO MoU and its attachment are not also spelled out in the NRO document. In the case of rejection, any dissatisfied party could resort to the appeals process. > > Chapter 7 : > Here the bottom up process should be described. > You may be right. In the scenario where the global policy process is defined in an ASO MoU with ICANN that MoU defines the bottom up process. > > Aren't the ICANN board directors election the Number Council's duties > any more? The Address Council will select ICANN Board members as provided for in the ICANN by-laws and the ASO MoU. When the ASO MoU is agreed to between the RIRs and ICANN, the Numbers Council will become the ASO Address Council and will function under the provisions of the ASO MoU. > > What are the lenghts of each person's term? Can they be renewed? > Can the 2 selected persons be RIR staffed persons? > Good questions. Since there would probably be a transition from the present Address Council to the Numbers Council a staggering would need to be defined but we felt it would be better to have a basic agreement with ICANN and also seeking advice from the present Address Council before getting into defining a system for this. A reasonable assumption would be to get to three year terms like now. RIR staff members may not be elected to either of the two elected seats. An RIR staff member may be appointed by theappropriate RIR Board to the one RIR appointed positon from each region. > > Chapter 9 : > How long will people seat on the Appeals Panel? > Experience from the RIPE NCC arbitration panel shows that the arbiters have not been very busy. My personal preference would be to let the NRO ping the selected representatives about annually, and keep them as long as they are willing and and able and have the desired knowledge. > > Chapter 10 : > In case of an abitration that takes long time : what will happen? Is > there a kind of provision that says that during the time there is no > decision, policies will be applied as they were before the dispute started? > Good point. As usual, the appeals process is institued to seek agreement before a part resorts to a lawsuit. The pressure to avoid suits should be an incentive for the appeals panel to act quickly, however, the circumstances of each situation will dictate deadlines. Therefore, a one size fits all time is not suitable. It may be worth considering, but perhaps difficult to decide in advance for all cases, whether initiation of appeal should have holding effect on the process in question. > > Chapter 11 : > How is an RIR member defined? This is an RIR signatory. Should probably be clarified in the text. > > What is the clause 12b? > Thanks for spotting this! This should say 1.2. > > Chapter 12 : > What are those technical activities : could be a lots of things... > Yes, and as such they must be agreed by the Executive Council. Examples could be mutual data-base backup between RIRs or global whois services. > > Chapter 13 : > Will the RIR members (again to be defined) pay a fee directly to the > NRO, or will this be done via the RIRs existing fundings? > Like above, RIR member in this chapter means NRO signatory. Since the NRO will not have a budget there will be no fees paid to the NRO. All expenditures will be agreed to by the Executive Council. The Secretariat will track the costs and invoice each RIR as appropriate. Just as is the situation today with regards to funds for the ICANN budget and funds to support ASO and ASO AC activities, the RIRs include these expenditures in their individual budgets. In regard to the NRO and the new ASO and and ASO AC we expect the same method of operation. It is expected that these expenditures will be similar to today's situation. > > What is paragraph "a" refering to? > Thanks! As above, letters were changed to numbers in bullet points, so this should be paragraph 13.1. > > ASO MoU > > From the NRO document statements, the Address Council is under the > responsablity of the NRO Exec council, and has RIR appointed members. So > what does "in conjunction with the RIRs" means? > > Again the split between policy making process and operations is > confused, because of the ASO AC being under the responsibility of the > NRO. Indeed point 4 stresses that the RIRs Board do have a policy making > role. > "In conjunction with the RIRs" means that both the Address Council and the RIRs will work together. While it is anticipated that most questions and concerns of the RIRs can be dealt with by the RIR appointed members of the Adress Council, there always exits the possibiliy that additional information may have to be gathered by RIR staffs or the RIR Boards may need to comment. Thanks for your thoughtful questions and comments. For further discussion you may also want to check http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/nro-faq.html Frode Greisen RIPE NCC Executive Board Member > > Looking forward to any clarification you can provide, > > Thanks! > > Best regards,

1 0

RIPE NCC allocations to African LIRs
by leo vegoda 15 Oct '03

15 Oct '03

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC received the IPv4 address range 196.200.0.0/13 from ARIN in October 2003. This range will be used to make allocations and assignments to organisations based in African countries served by the RIPE NCC. This block is part of a /8 also used by ARIN. In order to reduce confusion the RIPE NCC will not assign prefixes longer than a /24 from it. You may wish to adjust any filters you have in place accordingly. More information on the IP space administered by the RIPE NCC can be found on our web site at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/smallest-alloc-sizes.html> Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager

1 0

Some questions regarding the NRO proposal
by Hans Petter Holen 15 Oct '03

15 Oct '03

Dear all, First of all I would like to congratulate the RIRs with a constructive and solid proposal to move forward. I think the formalization of an organization to help the RIRs act in a coordinated manner is lomg overdue. As a general comment I think the detailed specification of the global policy making process is a step forward. Under the current MOU this is not well defined and clarification of the process should be much welcomed to all involved. In reading the proposal I have some questions, first to the NRO Agreement: 6. NRO Executive council Is there a clear enough division between legislative and executive roles? One of its roles is to ratify and reject global IP number policies. (Legislative), at the same time the Executive council is empowered to sign documents and contracts (executive). Maybe it needs some clarification in the language to make it clearer that the EC simply ratifies that polices has been formed according to process. 7 NRO Number Council ii Composition What is the reason for the proposed composition? The Board of the RIRs are elected by the members of the RIR and the current procedures for electing ASO AC members are that mostly the members elect the council members. The proposal is in reality a combination between a direct and indirect election. What is the advantage of this? Why not revert to just one approach direct or indirect election? a) Election by RIR members b) Election by RIR boards The Council shall under the agreement elect a chair. It may also be necessary to elect co-chairs and a secretary for the Council to maximize its ability to conduct its tasks. Regarding the composition of the two councils: what conflicts of interests exists between the two and the bodies of the RIRs? Are there global conflicts of interests or should this be left to the individual RIRs to decide? Then to the ASO MOU Attachment A: Global Policy Development Process: 4. For some RIRs (RIPE NCC) this introduces a new role to the Board in ratif ying policy proposals. While this may be a good idea - it does require some changes to the regional policy process to be aligned. Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen

2 1

Draft minutes: RIPE 46 Address Policy WG session
by leo vegoda 14 Oct '03

14 Oct '03

Dear Colleagues, Draft minutes from the Address Policy Working Group session at RIPE 46 can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/address-policy/r46-minutes.html Please check the minutes for errors or omissions. Comments and corrections can be sent directly to this list or to one of the WG chairs personally. Additionally, draft minutes from the LIR Working Group at RIPE 45 are can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/r45-minutes.html These have not yet been approved and can still be corrected if appropriate. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager

1 0

Call for volunteers: editorial group to revise "Charging by Local Internet Registries" document
by leo vegoda 13 Oct '03

13 Oct '03

Dear Colleagues, Last month at RIPE 46 the RIPE Address Policy Working Group (AP WG) discussed the RIPE document "Charging by Local Internet Registries" (ripe-152). The document was published in 1996 and describes "charging for services by Internet registries and indicates acceptable practice for such charging". It can be found at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/chargingbylirs.html> Particular attention was given to the statement that "registries may charge for their administrative and technical services, they may not charge for name space or address space as such; no unit cost or price tag can be attached to a domain name or to an IP address, public or private." It was agreed that an editorial group of volunteers from the community should be formed discuss the document and suggest changes to its text and content. A mailing list has been created for this discussion. The list is open to anyone wishing to participate. If you want to subscribe to the list you can do so via the web interface at: <http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ripe-152bis> Additionally, a web archive of the discussion can be found at: <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/ripe-152bis> Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager

1 0

Proposed Open Letter to ICANN and Related Documents
by Axel Pawlik 13 Oct '03

13 Oct '03

Dear Colleagues, The Regional Internet Registries (RIR) have published three (3) documents: a. Proposed Open Letter to ICANN from the Regional Internet Registries b. Proposed Agreement between the RIRs to create the Number Resource Organization c. Proposed Agreement between the RIRs (acting through the NRO) and ICANN concerning the Address Supporting Organization These documents are available on a single web page at: http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/draft-public-comment.html In order to ensure that RIR members and address communities in every region have the opportunity to comment, the Board of the RIRs have requested that RIRs post the documents for a period of 30 days. The comment period closes at midnight (UTC) on the 22nd October 2003. Each of the RIR Boards will consider the comments as they are received, and each RIR Board intends to make a decision whether to adopt these documents following this comment period. If these documents are adopted by all the RIR Boards, it is the present intention to formally pass the following open letter to ICANN on the 24th of October. On the same date the Boards of the RIRs currently intend to direct their CEOs to sign the MoU concerning the establishment of the Number Resource Organization. All comments should be addressed to: nro-comments(a)apnic.net. The comments will be passed to all the Boards of the RIRs, and will also be published on the web site http://www.apnic.net/nro-comments. Any dialogue that arises from such comments will also be published on this site. Subscription information for the nro-comments mailing list is available at: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/nro-comments All postings to this mail address (nro-comments(a)apnic.net) are public, and will be published at the following URL: http://www.apnic.net/nro-comments kind regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC

2 1