regarding housecleaning efforts in absurdum
First and foremost, I must say I am all for keeping the database up to date and making sure all resources are documented correctly. However, I know of at least one specific case where a PI network that was operationally handed over around the year 2000 (MNT object etc), is currently properly documented and the operational holder is willing to do everything needed to become the properly documented holder, but can't, because he can't produce transfer documents by the company initially holding it, because that company doesn't have any operational staff anymore. The staff at the time the PI network was operationally transfered is available, but isn't currently employed by the original company so they can't sign the required paperwork on the original company letterhead. RIPE NCC is now saying they're going to de-register the PI network and reclaim it because transfer documents for the handover done 13 years ago can't be produced. I think this is wrong. There should be some kind of statue of limitation on time for producing documents. The dispute isn't between the original company and the current operational holder, the dispute is solely between RIPE NCC and the current operational holder. What policy documents need to change for this to happen? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On 14/08/2013 15:38, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
What policy documents need to change for this to happen?
Does this need to be handled via a policy change? I.e. has this been escalated inside the RIPE NCC and if that was unsuccessful, handed over to the arbitration panel for their opinion? Nick
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Does this need to be handled via a policy change? I.e. has this been escalated inside the RIPE NCC and if that was unsuccessful, handed over to the arbitration panel for their opinion?
No, that hasn't happened because the person didn't know about it. Personally I dislike a policy that requires someone to know innards of RIPE NCC in order to get reasonable treatment. As far as I can tell, the hostmaster in question didn't offer these alternatives. The only alternatives were "produce documents on original companys letterhead authorizing the transfer" and when the response was that it can't be done (with a reasonable explanation), the only path forward was said to be reclamation of the resource or to become LIR himself. No talk about escalation path or "arbitration panel". How are "normal" people going to know about this? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On 14/08/2013 16:08, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
No, that hasn't happened because the person didn't know about it.
It's the same as dispute resolution everywhere else: if there is an issue which isn't resolved on the front desk, then you escalate. The Arbitration / dispute resolution process is not as well known as it might be, but it has existed for donkeys years: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/legal/arbitration
Personally I dislike a policy that requires someone to know innards of RIPE NCC in order to get reasonable treatment. As far as I can tell, the hostmaster in question didn't offer these alternatives.
It sounds like there may be scope for the IPRA team to educate PI holders on their options, and this might be something that the RIPE NCC management to think about. This will end up being fairer for the PI holders, and will also protect the RIPE NCC from allegations of unfair practice. Phase three of 2007-01 will produce difficult cases. Could someone from the RIPE NCC comment on general procedures surrounding what they might do in circumstances where there the holdership of the PI resources is unclear? And what the escalation options are? Nick
Dear Nick and others, As requested, I am writing to provide clarification about the process the RIPE NCC follows to establish the legitimate holder of PI address space, and to outline how a case may be escalated. As mentioned earlier, Registration Services is currently in contact with hundreds of potential PI resource holders. For the most part, the more straightforward cases have already been resolved. What is left now are those cases where things are not quite so clear-cut: a resource may have changed hands several times, and there is often no paper trail documenting this. In many cases, these resources have never been announced or have not been announced for a very long time, etc. Every potential resource holder is given three months to produce documentation that demonstrates the legitimacy of their claim. We sometimes give extensions when we feel that good progress is being made. However, at some point we do have to start the de-registration procedure. From here, the potential resource holder still has an additional 90 days to find the required documentation. We explore a number of options to find a satisfactory solution. In cases where all available options have been exhausted but the IPRA feels reasonably certain about the legitimacy of the claim, they may escalate the request to management for a final decision. Similarly, the IPRA may also escalate the matter, either at the request of the other party or following internal procedures if the communication becomes difficult. If no agreement can be reached even after the matter has been escalated, we inform the potential resource holder that they can ask their potential sponsoring LIR to object to our decision via the Arbiters Panel. During arbitration, all ongoing processes are frozen. You can find out more about the RIPE NCC's Arbitration Process here: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/legal/arbitration Finally, I would like to highlight that out of the thousands of resources we have dealt with as part of the 2007-01 project, very few cases that have come this far. In the overwhelming majority of (legitimate) cases, we are able to resolve matters satisfactorily for both parties. Regarding the request that started this thread, please note that we will do our best to resolve this matter with the other party. Kind regards Ingrid Wijte RIPE NCC On 8/14/13 5:20 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 14/08/2013 16:08, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
No, that hasn't happened because the person didn't know about it. It's the same as dispute resolution everywhere else: if there is an issue which isn't resolved on the front desk, then you escalate. The Arbitration / dispute resolution process is not as well known as it might be, but it has existed for donkeys years:
http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/legal/arbitration
Personally I dislike a policy that requires someone to know innards of RIPE NCC in order to get reasonable treatment. As far as I can tell, the hostmaster in question didn't offer these alternatives. It sounds like there may be scope for the IPRA team to educate PI holders on their options, and this might be something that the RIPE NCC management to think about. This will end up being fairer for the PI holders, and will also protect the RIPE NCC from allegations of unfair practice. Phase three of 2007-01 will produce difficult cases.
Could someone from the RIPE NCC comment on general procedures surrounding what they might do in circumstances where there the holdership of the PI resources is unclear? And what the escalation options are?
Nick
Hi Ingrid, Thanks for clarifying this. Would it be possible to put this information up on the web site? I had a quick look around, but couldn't find anything related to 2007-01 phase 3 procedures other than ripe-569. This document gave some information on the general process from the RIPE NCC point of view, but doesn't explain clearly what the End Users' rights were, or provide information about what escalation procedures are available. Nick On 16/08/2013 15:02, Ingrid Wijte wrote:
Dear Nick and others,
As requested, I am writing to provide clarification about the process the RIPE NCC follows to establish the legitimate holder of PI address space, and to outline how a case may be escalated.
As mentioned earlier, Registration Services is currently in contact with hundreds of potential PI resource holders. For the most part, the more straightforward cases have already been resolved. What is left now are those cases where things are not quite so clear-cut: a resource may have changed hands several times, and there is often no paper trail documenting this. In many cases, these resources have never been announced or have not been announced for a very long time, etc.
Every potential resource holder is given three months to produce documentation that demonstrates the legitimacy of their claim. We sometimes give extensions when we feel that good progress is being made. However, at some point we do have to start the de-registration procedure. From here, the potential resource holder still has an additional 90 days to find the required documentation.
We explore a number of options to find a satisfactory solution. In cases where all available options have been exhausted but the IPRA feels reasonably certain about the legitimacy of the claim, they may escalate the request to management for a final decision. Similarly, the IPRA may also escalate the matter, either at the request of the other party or following internal procedures if the communication becomes difficult. If no agreement can be reached even after the matter has been escalated, we inform the potential resource holder that they can ask their potential sponsoring LIR to object to our decision via the Arbiters Panel. During arbitration, all ongoing processes are frozen.
You can find out more about the RIPE NCC's Arbitration Process here: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/legal/arbitration
Finally, I would like to highlight that out of the thousands of resources we have dealt with as part of the 2007-01 project, very few cases that have come this far. In the overwhelming majority of (legitimate) cases, we are able to resolve matters satisfactorily for both parties. Regarding the request that started this thread, please note that we will do our best to resolve this matter with the other party.
Kind regards
Ingrid Wijte RIPE NCC
On 8/14/13 5:20 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 14/08/2013 16:08, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
No, that hasn't happened because the person didn't know about it. It's the same as dispute resolution everywhere else: if there is an issue which isn't resolved on the front desk, then you escalate. The Arbitration / dispute resolution process is not as well known as it might be, but it has existed for donkeys years:
http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/legal/arbitration
Personally I dislike a policy that requires someone to know innards of RIPE NCC in order to get reasonable treatment. As far as I can tell, the hostmaster in question didn't offer these alternatives. It sounds like there may be scope for the IPRA team to educate PI holders on their options, and this might be something that the RIPE NCC management to think about. This will end up being fairer for the PI holders, and will also protect the RIPE NCC from allegations of unfair practice. Phase three of 2007-01 will produce difficult cases.
Could someone from the RIPE NCC comment on general procedures surrounding what they might do in circumstances where there the holdership of the PI resources is unclear? And what the escalation options are?
Nick
-- Network Ability Ltd. | Chief Technical Officer | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick@inex.ie
Hi Nick, We published information and procedures for Phase 3 at the following URL but possibly it could be more prominent and easy to find: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/2007-01-phase-3/impleme... We will look at improving the location of this page and adding some additional information. Best regards, Ingrid Wijte RIPE NCC On 8/18/13 6:56 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Hi Ingrid,
Thanks for clarifying this. Would it be possible to put this information up on the web site? I had a quick look around, but couldn't find anything related to 2007-01 phase 3 procedures other than ripe-569. This document gave some information on the general process from the RIPE NCC point of view, but doesn't explain clearly what the End Users' rights were, or provide information about what escalation procedures are available.
Nick
On 16/08/2013 15:02, Ingrid Wijte wrote:
Dear Nick and others,
As requested, I am writing to provide clarification about the process the RIPE NCC follows to establish the legitimate holder of PI address space, and to outline how a case may be escalated.
As mentioned earlier, Registration Services is currently in contact with hundreds of potential PI resource holders. For the most part, the more straightforward cases have already been resolved. What is left now are those cases where things are not quite so clear-cut: a resource may have changed hands several times, and there is often no paper trail documenting this. In many cases, these resources have never been announced or have not been announced for a very long time, etc.
Every potential resource holder is given three months to produce documentation that demonstrates the legitimacy of their claim. We sometimes give extensions when we feel that good progress is being made. However, at some point we do have to start the de-registration procedure. From here, the potential resource holder still has an additional 90 days to find the required documentation.
We explore a number of options to find a satisfactory solution. In cases where all available options have been exhausted but the IPRA feels reasonably certain about the legitimacy of the claim, they may escalate the request to management for a final decision. Similarly, the IPRA may also escalate the matter, either at the request of the other party or following internal procedures if the communication becomes difficult. If no agreement can be reached even after the matter has been escalated, we inform the potential resource holder that they can ask their potential sponsoring LIR to object to our decision via the Arbiters Panel. During arbitration, all ongoing processes are frozen.
You can find out more about the RIPE NCC's Arbitration Process here: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/legal/arbitration
Finally, I would like to highlight that out of the thousands of resources we have dealt with as part of the 2007-01 project, very few cases that have come this far. In the overwhelming majority of (legitimate) cases, we are able to resolve matters satisfactorily for both parties. Regarding the request that started this thread, please note that we will do our best to resolve this matter with the other party.
Kind regards
Ingrid Wijte RIPE NCC
On 8/14/13 5:20 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 14/08/2013 16:08, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
No, that hasn't happened because the person didn't know about it. It's the same as dispute resolution everywhere else: if there is an issue which isn't resolved on the front desk, then you escalate. The Arbitration / dispute resolution process is not as well known as it might be, but it has existed for donkeys years:
http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/legal/arbitration
Personally I dislike a policy that requires someone to know innards of RIPE NCC in order to get reasonable treatment. As far as I can tell, the hostmaster in question didn't offer these alternatives. It sounds like there may be scope for the IPRA team to educate PI holders on their options, and this might be something that the RIPE NCC management to think about. This will end up being fairer for the PI holders, and will also protect the RIPE NCC from allegations of unfair practice. Phase three of 2007-01 will produce difficult cases.
Could someone from the RIPE NCC comment on general procedures surrounding what they might do in circumstances where there the holdership of the PI resources is unclear? And what the escalation options are?
Nick
Dear Mikael, Registration Services is contacting many 2007-01 resources daily and each case is different. Could you please contact me off-list and inform me which resources you are referring to so we can look at the process followed and the documentation provided? Thanks in advance, Ingrid Wijte RIPE NCC On 8/14/13 4:38 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
First and foremost, I must say I am all for keeping the database up to date and making sure all resources are documented correctly.
However, I know of at least one specific case where a PI network that was operationally handed over around the year 2000 (MNT object etc), is currently properly documented and the operational holder is willing to do everything needed to become the properly documented holder, but can't, because he can't produce transfer documents by the company initially holding it, because that company doesn't have any operational staff anymore. The staff at the time the PI network was operationally transfered is available, but isn't currently employed by the original company so they can't sign the required paperwork on the original company letterhead.
RIPE NCC is now saying they're going to de-register the PI network and reclaim it because transfer documents for the handover done 13 years ago can't be produced.
I think this is wrong. There should be some kind of statue of limitation on time for producing documents. The dispute isn't between the original company and the current operational holder, the dispute is solely between RIPE NCC and the current operational holder.
What policy documents need to change for this to happen?
On 14 Aug 2013, at 15:38, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
RIPE NCC is now saying they're going to de-register the PI network and reclaim it because transfer documents for the handover done 13 years ago can't be produced.
I think this is wrong.
Your reaction seems reasonable, but I'm only aware of your side of the story so far.
There should be some kind of statue of limitation on time for producing documents. The dispute isn't between the original company and the current operational holder, the dispute is solely between RIPE NCC and the current operational holder.
What policy documents need to change for this to happen?
I'm not certain that this can be dealt with by changing policy documents. The problem seems to be one of procedure, and to need to be escalated to someone at the RIPE NCC who has authority to make the call that this is (if so it be) a case where following the standard procedure is inappropriate and to decide what is the right thing to do. I'm pretty sure that such a someone can be found at the RIPE NCC. If you've already sought to have the problem escalated to that level, and have been frustrated, it's probably the moment for your posting on this list. Otherwise, I'ld see your posting as premature. I hope this helps Niall O'Reilly
On 14 Aug 2013, at 15:38, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
RIPE NCC is now saying they're going to de-register the PI network and reclaim it because transfer documents for the handover done 13 years ago can't be produced.
I think this is wrong.
+1. OTOH the company which originally got the space still exists. So there's no obvious reason why some sort of paperwork can't be produced to give the NCC enough of a comfort level to get these resources transferred to their current user/operator.
There should be some kind of statue of limitation on time for producing documents.
I disagree. For one thing, whatever time limit gets chosen -- good luck getting consensus on that! -- will be abitrary. And anyone hoping to sneakily inherit/acquire space would just need to wait until that time interval had passed before claiming "lack of documentation" as the pretext for changing a MNT object or whatever. That said, these sorts of historical issues do crop up from time to time and can usually be solved. For the case you outlined, it seems like some common sense needs to be applied and/or there's been a misunderstanding or two along the way. IMO that's not strong enough justification for making a policy change.
The dispute isn't between the original company and the current operational holder, the dispute is solely between RIPE NCC and the current operational holder.
Without knowing the specific details, it's hard to know if that's the case or not. IIUC, in these cases the NCC generally tries to take a more pragmatic approach. Surely there's somebody at the original company who can put something in writing to confirm that the address space moved when the network was transferred all those years ago? For all we know an officer of that company might have been in contact with the NCC and told a different story from the one given by the current user of the space.
On Wed, 14 Aug 2013, Jim Reid wrote:
IIUC, in these cases the NCC generally tries to take a more pragmatic approach.
Well, that didn't seem to happen in this case.
Surely there's somebody at the original company who can put something in writing to confirm that the address space moved when the network was transferred all those years ago?
*sigh*. Yes, that is the stance RIPE NCC has taken it seems. And when that person who *surely* exists can't be produced or won't sign because they know nothing about this, the space will be reclaimed.
For all we know an officer of that company might have been in contact with the NCC and told a different story from the one given by the current user of the space.
Speculation doesn't really help. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
participants (5)
-
Ingrid Wijte -
Jim Reid -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Niall O'Reilly -
Nick Hilliard