Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 11:35:11PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

So I think plain "+1" should not be also considered valuable.

Oh, it is (we had this discussion before) - at least for people that I know have been around before, it signals "I agree with the arguments the propers bring up why this is a useful way forward". If all of a sudden 50 people that have never spoken up before would show up and try to game a discussion by just posting "+1", I wouldn't consider this an overly strong argument either - right. This is part of the WG chair's job when judging consensus. Of course, part of "*rough* consensus" is that objections *have been addressed* - so if someone posts a "-1" without specifics, it is impossible to address these not-voiced objections, and putting too much weight on such a mail would make it very easy to kill every single policy proposal (and so we don't). There is no need to address supporting arguments, so indeed, the process is fairly asymmetric here. Of course a supporting voice that actually explains why the poster thinks this is a good way forward, with arguments that are not in the proposal itself, is even stronger - so thanks to Tore for making a good point. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Hi, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:35:51AM +0300, Storch Matei wrote:

I'm sorry, but from this reply I understand two things: 1) if somebody speaks up for the first time, that someone's opinion values less than that of somebody that spoje up before. 2) if somebody speaks up well within the set timeline, but on the very last day, it's suspicious (to say it mildly).

Thing is, anyone can send a mail to this list, and generally speaking, everyone's opinion is listened to. Now, if on the last day, a number of people nobody has ever heard of show up, from freemail accounts, and send "-1"s without any arguments, I think you can understand that it's a bit hard to see whether these are people legitimately concerned with specific reasons why they do not like the proposal, or just straw men. I can't tell, so I won't dismiss the mails summarily - but when judging the overall result, this certainly will influence the way we look at them.

I agree that any -1s especially (preferably also +1s) should be argumented, but those arguments should not be thrown out simply because "it's the last day" or because "you never spoke here before", which is was has been done here by some people.

I'm not "some people" :-)

Also, "to deal with the concerns" is pretty vague, especially in establishing when the concern has been dealt with. A reply from someone expressing disagreement with a concern does not mean the concern was dealt with.

This is the way rough consensus works - we will hardly ever reach unanimous agreement to a proposal, and quite often, we will not be able to convince everyone that we should do or not do something. But what we can do is to ensure that reasonable concerns (read: those that are clearly spelled out and are not totally made up) are at least answered. What is "reasonable" is sometimes very hard to judge when it comes to expectations, assumptions and predictions about things that might or might not happen in 5 years. This is not a very exact science.

My concern regarding the RIPE NCC impact analysis were (from my understanding) it is said that this policy will not address the actual hoarding problem was not even slightly dealt with, just an example.

I have to admit that I lost a bit track in the current hubbub about who said what, and who answered what, and who went off into non-relevant side-track discussions. Sander will look at it with a more detached eye and present his findings. [..]

I strongly feel that any kind of policy change (resource related or not) that would impact members directly should be voted upon - electronically, without the need of a RIPE meeting. Of course prior to voting all discussions should take place on mailing lists. The infrastructure is already setup. We are all ISPs and/or internet related businesses, I think we can all find 5 mins online in a 24h period to vote...

No. Voting can be even more easily rigged than consensus building on a public mailing list. (For a start, it's totally impossible to define who is entitled to vote, and how you get a represenative part of the community to actually vote) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Subject altered to reflect that this is not about 2015-01 anymore On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 01:02:41PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:

Now, if on the last day, a number of people nobody has ever heard of show up, from freemail accounts, and send "-1"s without any arguments, I think you can understand that it's a bit hard to see whether these are people legitimately concerned with specific reasons why they do not like the proposal, or just straw men. I can't tell, so I won't dismiss the mails summarily - but when judging the overall result, this certainly will influence the way we look at them.

I've long suspected that sock-puppetry is not confined to one side of this and other policy debates. As far as IPv4 is concerned, this will get worse, not better. At the moment the PDP is skewed towards "proposals are good-by-default and the pro argument doesn't need to be articulated"; I do not think this is the correct way. Most proposals have some "rationale against" and a "-1" can just as easily be construed to mean "I agree with the rationale against and therefore oppose the proposal". So I believe both sides should be required to argue their point.

No. Voting can be even more easily rigged than consensus building on a public mailing list.

The only issues I can see are - the NCC, as the overseeing body could influence the vote - Proxy voting, perhaps that could be disallowed for policy votes.

(For a start, it's totally impossible to define who is entitled to vote, and how you get a represenative part of the community to actually vote)

That one is in the AoA, afaik; full members in good standing are. The turnout at the last GM vote was roughly 5% but, at 500-ish it is still vastly more than the few people on this mailing list. Perhaps a dual strategy would be in order: consensus on the ML plus a membership vote on policies that affect members' business. (Yes, I'm aware this would be a pretty fundamental change and likely to slow down the PDP some) rgds, Sascha Luck

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] <apwg@c4inet.net> wrote:

Most proposals have some "rationale against" and a "-1" can just as easily be construed to mean "I agree with the rationale against and therefore oppose the proposal".

But _which_ of the rationales against do they agree with? For a "+1", that's very easy: it's the proposal that was linked to. For a "-1", they at the very least could point out what it is they think is wrong, and how. Apparently, for these particular sock puppets, even copy+paste is beyond any effort they're willing to expend, and I believe that as much weight should be put on the side of those opinions: nearly none. The "+1"s we see here hold an entirely different weight: they're support for a proposal that's ALREADY been through lenghty discussion process, with ample time to raise objections, influence the actual text, and so on. In other proposals, this excellent process has resulted in not only better wording and in some cases significantly changed proposal texts, but also in the complete workover or even withdrawal of the proposal in question. So I believe both sides should be required to argue their point.

This kind of policy that you suggest, promotes false equality, and is damaging to a fair and reasonable process. -- Jan

Sascha, On 10.06.2015 13:54, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:

Which of the rationales in favour does a "+1" agree with? Sometimes there is more than one.

The end-result which is the outcome of the proposal

You believe that a "fair and reasonable process" means that one side is presumed to be 'right' and doesn't have to make any argument? I have experienced this definition of "fair and reasonable process " before and, believe me that is not somewhere I wish to go back to.

The proposal itself, before being presented to the mailinglist already has a history. One/Some people already spent quiet some time thinking about something which currently is not working and finding a way to make things better. They write down a documentation how they want to enhance the current policy. So saying "I understand what your arguments for a change are and feel that it is a good idea to adjust the policy as you described" (or shorthand: +1) imho *is* different then simply saying "what you write is bullshit". Actually each argumentation is starting with one side presenting their working hypothesis with a description on why and how they come to it and looking for supporters. It's the other side who needs to *explain* what is not ok with that hypothesis and why they speak *against* it, at that point. Because the reasoning *for* that hypothesis already exists. BR Jens -- Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo@opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989

Hi, "For a start, it's totally impossible to define who is entitled to vote, and how you get a represenative part of the community to actually vote" - really? RIPE members should vote, since they are the ones affected, they are the ones telling the RIPE NCC how to act (at least that's my understanding - RIPE NCC works FOR RIPE, RIPE which is made of members of EQUAL rights and obligations). Of course, on the mailing lists ANYONE can intervene, and point out concerns, modifications, etc, and based on what is discussed there, the RIPE members vote. How to get them to vote - that is a totally different question - in Holland as far as I know, voting is COMPULSORY, and you face a penalty if you don't vote - I'm not saying to do something like this, but methods can be found. Also, I can agree there should be a minimum quorum, so that it doesn't happen that only 10 members vote and decide for hundreds of others. A 30% minimum votes I think is feasible. Vote rigging? Really? How do you come to that conclusion? It's not like we are in the US congress and have lobbists who push/bribe/bring illegal voters to get their way ... come on... " What is "reasonable" is sometimes very hard to judge when it comes to expectations, assumptions and predictions about things that might or might not happen in 5 years. This is not a very exact science." I totally agree it's not an exact science, but the (two) deciders who basically have the final word, should be 100% neutral. As somebody else mentioned, you leave the impression of beeing biased to this exact policy. " I'm not "some people" :-)" - you were not the only one implying that people who never spoke up before don't have the same weight in this decision. I don't want to point fingers, it is nothing personal. Again, please understand that I agree with most of your affirmations. I also fully agree that a policy should be put in place to avoid abuse of the last /8 (the RIPE NCC does not see it as an abuse, I reiterate this, and also does not see this policy as having a real impact), but this policy does not do that. In my opinion, other mechanisms should be enforced - for example, what procentage of the /22s allocated are beeing announced? Just that the LIR was not closed, it does not mean the /22 was not hoarded. Matei Storch [F]: General Manager [M]: +40728.555.004 [E]: matei@profisol.ro [C]: Profisol Telecom -----Original Message----- From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert@space.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 14:03 To: Storch Matei Cc: Gert Doering; Vladimir Andreev; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Hi, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:35:51AM +0300, Storch Matei wrote:

I'm sorry, but from this reply I understand two things: 1) if somebody speaks up for the first time, that someone's opinion values less than that of somebody that spoje up before. 2) if somebody speaks up well within the set timeline, but on the very last day, it's suspicious (to say it mildly).

Thing is, anyone can send a mail to this list, and generally speaking, everyone's opinion is listened to. Now, if on the last day, a number of people nobody has ever heard of show up, from freemail accounts, and send "-1"s without any arguments, I think you can understand that it's a bit hard to see whether these are people legitimately concerned with specific reasons why they do not like the proposal, or just straw men. I can't tell, so I won't dismiss the mails summarily - but when judging the overall result, this certainly will influence the way we look at them.

I agree that any -1s especially (preferably also +1s) should be argumented, but those arguments should not be thrown out simply because "it's the last day" or because "you never spoke here before", which is was has been done here by some people.

I'm not "some people" :-)

Also, "to deal with the concerns" is pretty vague, especially in establishing when the concern has been dealt with. A reply from someone expressing disagreement with a concern does not mean the concern was dealt with.

This is the way rough consensus works - we will hardly ever reach unanimous agreement to a proposal, and quite often, we will not be able to convince everyone that we should do or not do something. But what we can do is to ensure that reasonable concerns (read: those that are clearly spelled out and are not totally made up) are at least answered. What is "reasonable" is sometimes very hard to judge when it comes to expectations, assumptions and predictions about things that might or might not happen in 5 years. This is not a very exact science.

My concern regarding the RIPE NCC impact analysis were (from my understanding) it is said that this policy will not address the actual hoarding problem was not even slightly dealt with, just an example.

I have to admit that I lost a bit track in the current hubbub about who said what, and who answered what, and who went off into non-relevant side-track discussions. Sander will look at it with a more detached eye and present his findings. [..]

I strongly feel that any kind of policy change (resource related or not) that would impact members directly should be voted upon - electronically, without the need of a RIPE meeting. Of course prior to voting all discussions should take place on mailing lists. The infrastructure is already setup. We are all ISPs and/or internet related businesses, I think we can all find 5 mins online in a 24h period to vote...

No. Voting can be even more easily rigged than consensus building on a public mailing list. (For a start, it's totally impossible to define who is entitled to vote, and how you get a represenative part of the community to actually vote) Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

RIPE *policy*, on the other hand, is explicitely not made by the RIPE NCC or the RIPE NCC members, but by the RIPE community - which is "individual having an interest" not "corporations being part of a commercial structure".

the reason for this is because the internet serves the entire community, whether LIR, enterprise, or 15 year old with a modem (he has probably upgraded since i last used him as an example). the internet is for everyone, and policy decisions should be open to input from everyone. of course, this does not include sock puppets. randy

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:56:54PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:

RIPE NCC is a Dutch non-profit organisation funded by members who pay annual fees. In return for those fees, they get various services from the RIPE NCC. Members also elect the board and vote on its activity plan and charging scheme at the AGM.

RIPE is an open community of people and organisations who are interested in IP-based networking (and related matters), mostly in Europe and the Middle East. It does not have a legal identity. RIPE works by consensus. It does not vote. It does not have any formal membership structure and therefore does not have members in the same way that RIPE NCC has members. These things are deliberate.

What is missing here is that the RIPE NCC, and its members, are bound by the policies that RIPE comes up with. In reality, this means that < 10 people on a mailing list (some of whom may or may not be sockpuppets) decide how ~12,000 members have to deal with the RIPE NCC.

RIPE develops various policies which RIPE NCC then implement. If the RIPE NCC membership feel that RIPE policies are not in the best interests of the RIPE NCC (membership), they can use the RIPE NCC's bye-laws to do something about that: replace board members, call a GM, reject the activity plan or fee structure, pass resolutions, etc, etc.

What would the point be of replacing a Board (which has so far done a good job) with one that is just as bound by RIPE policy as the last one? The only real options open to a membership unhappy with RIPE policy are to elect a Board that promises not to be bound by RIPE policy or to de-fund the NCC. I don't think either option appeals much. rgds, Sascha Luck

Hi, On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 02:43:23PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:

However, you can of course come up with a proposal, based on your own criticism of how these processes are. I don't quite see how that is on topic for the address policy working group, though, as it's not an address policy, but a meta policy which has ramifications far beyond this working group.

Right, a change to the PDP would have go through consensus on the ripe-list as it affects the whole community and all the WGs (though AP is certainly the WG that excercises the PDP most). ... and the RIPE chair would have to judge consensus on this. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 01:59:26PM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:

However if that ever happens, it means the other 11,990 NCC members were either indifferent to the policy proposal or felt it didn't have enough impact to take ANY action while the proposal was passing through the PDP. This is the equivalent of someone complaining about who got to be in government when they didn't bother to go out and vote.

Alas, this is only too true and I don't know why this is so. I might propose an NCC activity to raise awareness of the PDP among the membership as a first step - if I can figure out how to go about that. Another thing that may help is to move away from mailing lists as the sole tool - email is something that only old farts like myself are really comfortable with, not to mention very open to abuse as we've seen. There are more modern collaboration tools available, something like Etherpad maybe... rgds, Sascha Luck

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 02:00:00PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:

See https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/cc/summaries/ripe-70-working-group-... item V :)

Way ahead of me, I see. Nice one, thanks to the Chairs. rgds, Sascha Luck

On 10/06/2015 14:03, Randy Bush wrote:

what is missing here is that, if only LIRs decided policy, a few thousand folk (likely 10 people on a mailing list), would decide policy affecting millions internet users.

~980m. Nick

Dear Vladimir, On 09.06.2015 22:35, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

So I think plain "+1" should not be also considered valuable.

please spare us all this kind of ridiculousness in your argument. Thanks, -C.

09.06.2015, 23:27, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:

...

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 08:01:29PM +0000, Borhan Habibi wrote:

...

I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem

-1 to this proposal

I find it quite interesting to see so many people show up today (on the very last day of the review phase) that have never been seen on the APWG list before, voicing "-1" without any more specific reasoning.

Folks, we are not voting here. So it does not help to bring all your friends to post a "-1". Come up with arguments.

Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

Dear Vladimir, On 10.06.2015 08:09, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

You're angry because you know that it's completely fair idea.

first of all, I am not angry. I just believe that we have more important stuff to deal with than these see-through non-arguments. Secondly: the tagging of your "idea" as fair appears as another attempt to blurr this discussion. Semantically, there indeed *IS* a difference between lending support to a proposal and objecting to it. In the former, you buy into the rationale already put forward by the proposer - no need to repeat them. Conditions apply as Gert has come up with. In the latter, you object to the rationale - and you want to let hear reasons for it. It is really that simple.

P.S. The policy of "gagging the mouths" is rather stupid one. Storch Matei yesterday wrote a lot about such "practice". I totally support his statements.

I do not attempt to gag anybody. I just beg your mercy to spare us the fuzz. Thanks and best, -C.

Hello Dear Colleagues, I am reading all of these comments and statements without giving any vote on the matter. By reading this one, I thought I may write some sentences.

I agree with the ones writing that the policy is not fully solving the issue. But I think we should adopt this policy ASAP as short-term solution. That way we win a period of additional 12 months to define a stronger policy .....

why not go for that stronger policy right now? why not stop transferring all IPV4 addresses at all? closing all of these businesses. Isn't it true that we are encouraging people toward IPV6? So, isn't it true that letting people to transfer their spaces (selling them), will provide additional addresses to those who need it and as a result it delays IPV6 deployment? with kind regards, Saeed. -----Original Message----- From: Ciprian Nica Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 10:48 AM To: Opteamax GmbH ; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Hi,

I agree with the ones writing that the policy is not fully solving the issue. But I think we should adopt this policy ASAP as short-term solution. That way we win a period of additional 12 months to define a stronger policy which defines that prefixes from last /8 may not be transfered at all... and maybe even a (not address) policy defining that natural person which where discovered to willingly abuse the community will be banned from ripe membership for the rest of their lifes.

I wouldn't want to bring this subject but it seems that most of the people are looking at the problems witht the eyes shut. Let me give you an example: - 37.222.0.0/15 - allocated on 05.04.2012 - 5.132.0.0/16 - allocated on 02.07.2012 - 5.224.0.0/15 - allocated on 06.09.2012 All theese were given to a natural person from Netherlands. During that time I was working for a very large ISP that had a very important IPv6 deployment in place. I remember it was very difficult to get a /14,/17 and I was told it's necessary to get the RIPE NCC's board approval for such a large allocation (I actually asked for a /13 but wouldn't get it). Where are that IPs now ? Did this natural person expand that fast and is now a large ISP in Netherlands ? Most of them are already cashed out for millions. This single example did more damage than all the "hoarders of the last /8". Was this possible without some inside help ? Has RIPE NCC noticed this kind of abuse (as it's not the only one) and did anything about it ? Why are we focusing on the small fish ? Maybe it's, as I said, just smoke meant to prevent us from seeing the real fire. I'll have to amend the Hamlet quote and say that something is rotten in Netherlands.

The intention of those /22 from last /8 was giving the opportunity to set up transformers connecting ancient V4 world to shining new V6 world. There is no need of taking over those addresses, even for mergers and aquisition. If some LIR are using those V4 for other purpose then creating gateways between old an new world ... fair enough, but with that kind of stronger version they'd already know that this addresses are not transferable. And they'd simply have to deal with it. Actually I don't see a reason why not requiring very strong reasoning for each transfer. The default shall be all resources have to be returned. I am sure thar requiring the need to argue for several months to get resources transfered will make lot's of transfers obsolete, because that way the transfer becomes uninteresting for most cases. Only LIR with real world used and needed resources will take that discussion. And all traders will silently disappear.

If RIPE NCC would present to the community the problems they see, maybe we could come up with some policies to prevent them. But we should not waste the energy on small, irrelevant problems.

So my conclusion on all those "-1 it doesn't solve"-mails: Adopt this proposal now to prevent further abuse during definition of a much more restrictive policy"

I think it is an important argument. Doing something that has no positive effect is just smoke that makes some of us sleep better while the problems might become worse. Ciprian

Hi@all, +1 for Jens +1 for the proposal 2015-01 Kind regards, Carsten Brückner LIR de.government -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Opteamax GmbH Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 06:38 An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Hi Borhan, Hi List, hanging around on this list and discussing policy issues for quiet a while I am kind of surprised seeing how this discussion is going now... Having this big amount of almost identically sounding "-1 I oppose because I don't like" mails without any substance besides "subjective feelings" gives me the impression that the policy definition process is being abused exactly the same way as the /8 policy is being abused: some few are signing into the mailing list with a lot of addresses just to prevent a policy which has the intention to prevent exactly those people's way of abusing the community! To be honest, this behaviour makes the need for this kind of policy-change only appear more important. I agree with the ones writing that the policy is not fully solving the issue. But I think we should adopt this policy ASAP as short-term solution. That way we win a period of additional 12 months to define a stronger policy which defines that prefixes from last /8 may not be transfered at all... and maybe even a (not address) policy defining that natural person which where discovered to willingly abuse the community will be banned from ripe membership for the rest of their lifes. The intention of those /22 from last /8 was giving the opportunity to set up transformers connecting ancient V4 world to shining new V6 world. There is no need of taking over those addresses, even for mergers and aquisition. If some LIR are using those V4 for other purpose then creating gateways between old an new world ... fair enough, but with that kind of stronger version they'd already know that this addresses are not transferable. And they'd simply have to deal with it. Actually I don't see a reason why not requiring very strong reasoning for each transfer. The default shall be all resources have to be returned. I am sure thar requiring the need to argue for several months to get resources transfered will make lot's of transfers obsolete, because that way the transfer becomes uninteresting for most cases. Only LIR with real world used and needed resources will take that discussion. And all traders will silently disappear. So my conclusion on all those "-1 it doesn't solve"-mails: Adopt this proposal now to prevent further abuse during definition of a much more restrictive policy" Sorry for being so pragmatic, but all those -1 mails show me that the community actually want something much more restrictive! BR Jens Am 9. Juni 2015 22:01:29 MESZ, schrieb Borhan Habibi <borhan.h@gmail.com>:

I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem

-1 to this proposal

Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo@opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989