hi, i propose to change:This proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC must be established before the End User receives Internet number resources by: This proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC may be established before the End User receives Internet number resources. today, is not posible to etablish relationship with ripe. now with this modification of the 2007-1 that is possible but not an obligation. bst regards. Frederic CELLA
Frederic,
i propose to change:This proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC must be established before the End User receives Internet number resources
by:
This proposal states that a contractual relationship between an End User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC may be established before the End User receives Internet number resources.
today, is not posible to etablish relationship with ripe. now with this modification of the 2007-1 that is possible but not an obligation.
In short, no. In addition to the reasons listed in the justification section of 2007-01: - the current system does not work well from the point of view of responsible internet stewardship - depending on email communication as the only means of address management will promote resource hoarding once free ipv4 space runs out - maintaining correct and accurate contact information on address holders is troublesome and costs money - changing "must" to "may" means no change from the current position Your argument appears to be "I just don't want to have to pay for address space", and nothing more. This is neither a proper argument nor a sustainable position. As the proposer of this policy change, I don't believe that you have provided any substantial justification for your opinions. If you feel strongly about this, please feel free to either provide credible justification or else submit an alternative policy proposal. Nick Hilliard -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick@inex.ie
- changing "must" to "may" means no change from the current position
that change all, because the holder can have choice. if you don't have contract or break it for any reason : all your internet ressource are keep back. It's OK for PA : is it the main stream of the internet. but we do not want for PI.
Your argument appears to be "I just don't want to have to pay for address space", and nothing more. This is neither a proper argument nor a sustainable position.
No i do not say i do not want PAY : this is WRONG. i say we want to have choice for some internet ressource.
As the proposer of this policy change, I don't believe that you have provided any substantial justification for your opinions.
If you feel strongly about this, please feel free to either provide credible justification or else submit an alternative policy proposal.
we think that credible to fight for a little space of freedom and it is really a question of freedom. bst regards Frederic
Nick Hilliard
Frederic wrote:
Your argument appears to be "I just don't want to have to pay for address space", and nothing more. This is neither a proper argument nor a sustainable position. No i do not say i do not want PAY : this is WRONG. i say we want to have choice for some internet ressource.
You want the people to choose between paying and not paying? PA space assigned to you by a LIR will remain free of charge by the way. Anyway, for the record, I support 2007-01 in the current form. I strongly oppose any attempt to change it to be optional. In fact, if there was any way to require 2007-01 for old PI and ERX space I would be all in favour. Bernhard
Le mercredi 09 avril 2008 à 12:10 +0200, Bernhard Schmidt a écrit :
Frederic wrote:
Your argument appears to be "I just don't want to have to pay for address space", and nothing more. This is neither a proper argument nor a sustainable position. No i do not say i do not want PAY : this is WRONG. i say we want to have choice for some internet ressource.
You want the people to choose between paying and not paying?
no, to have contract or not contract, it is not the same.
PA space assigned to you by a LIR will remain free of charge by the way.
yes i know.
Anyway, for the record, I support 2007-01 in the current form. I strongly oppose any attempt to change it to be optional. In fact, if there was any way to require 2007-01 for old PI and ERX space I would be all in favour.
that's will be the end of a time... i beleive is dangerous. nothing justify this today. bst regards. Frederic
Bernhard
On 9 Apr 2008, at 11:03, Frederic wrote:
we think that credible to fight for a little space of freedom and it is really a question of freedom.
Think what you like. Until you offer a justification, no-one else is likely to agree with you. Freedom without responsibility just isn't credible. /Niall
Le jeudi 10 avril 2008 à 09:42 +0100, Niall O'Reilly a écrit :
On 9 Apr 2008, at 11:03, Frederic wrote:
we think that credible to fight for a little space of freedom and it is really a question of freedom.
Think what you like. Until you offer a justification, no-one else is likely to agree with you. Freedom without responsibility just isn't credible.
/Niall
it's to easy to have this conclusion and it is false (i m not here to talk philosophy). but i think the probleme is really politic. the 2007-1 is the kind of resolution that can change a lot of thing. And you come from a situation that works and you want solve only a problem of a technical nature by a legal contract. Today (before 2007-1) you may have AS and PI for free (no fee, no contract) and people who use these ressource are responsible : they update database, the use bgp properly and some of them, if they grow and then become LIR , drop PI ,get PA. the problem of internet ressource not used and not updated is only procedural. bst regards. Frédéric
Today (before 2007-1) you may have AS and PI for free (no fee, no contract) and people who use these ressource are responsible : they update database, the use bgp properly and some of them, if they grow and then become LIR , drop PI ,get PA.
Wrong again. The main reason why this policy has been proposed, is that the people using these resources are NOT responsible. Also, the policy does not outline the form of the contract required. As far as I understand, LIRs are pretty much free to have the kind of a contract they choose with the end user. With the current proposal it's even possible to have a contract that doesn't even require any payments. I feel that the spirit of this proposal is to put in writing the agreement that is already in place, i.e. "I agree to follow the policies". Therefore I feel that Frederic is fighting for the right to violate the policies. I support this proposal too. We need clearer guidelines to work with our present and future PI customers. Best regards, -- Tero Toikkanen Nebula Oy
Also, the policy does not outline the form of the contract required. As far as I understand, LIRs are pretty much free to have the kind of a contract they choose with the end user. With the current proposal it's even possible to have a contract that doesn't even require any payments.
I expect that most LIRs don't really know what to put in a contract for PI address applicants. Once we implement this policy proposal, the RIPE contract for PI applicants will become a model for LIRs to use for their own PI applicants. I don't expect LIRs to charge their customers anything for signing a PI contract so I agree that it is likely that existing PI users will not face any additional fees as long as they are buying some kind of network service from their LIR. --Michael Dillon
Hi, On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:01:15PM +0200, Frederic wrote:
the 2007-1 is the kind of resolution that can change a lot of thing.
Well, this is the intention. We currently have system that is fairly imbalanced regarding costs, freedom and responsibility between "PA" and "PI" space. This leads to various problems (that I'm not going to iterate, see the mailing list archives for all the discussions about it), and thus we have decided to re-gain the balance.
And you come from a situation that works and you want solve only a problem of a technical nature by a legal contract.
The current situation does *not* work - and things like "Address Space Hijacking" (going to a provider, claiming "this is my network!") *can* be fixed with legal contracts, plus resource certification. Resource certification is a must to keep Internet routing (half-way) secure in the coming decades - and without a reasonable legal basis, you can forget about resource certification. [..]
the problem of internet ressource not used and not updated is only procedural.
And without a contractual basis with the resource holder, you have no lever to fix the procedures for people that do not want to cooperate. Nobody has a problem with resource holders that *do* cooperate - but we need to fix the rest, and you can't get that with a voluntary contract (because people that do not want to cooperate will not enter a contract if they don't need to). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
participants (7)
-
Bernhard Schmidt -
Frederic -
Gert Doering -
michael.dillon＠bt.com -
Niall O'Reilly -
Nick Hilliard -
Tero Toikkanen