2009-02 New Policy Proposal (Allocating Resources to the RIPE NCC)
PDP Number: 2009-02 Allocating Resources to the RIPE NCC Dear Colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-02.html We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 21 April 2009. Regards Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
On the website: the company I work for is Equinix, not Equinox :-) On 24-03-09 16:41, "Filiz Yilmaz" <filiz@ripe.net> wrote:
PDP Number: 2009-02 Allocating Resources to the RIPE NCC
Dear Colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2009-02.html
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 21 April 2009.
Regards
Filiz Yilmaz Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.
On 24 Mar 2009, at 15:41, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
I like this better than the previous suggestion which created a new assignment type 'Assigned LIR'. Since policies like 2007-01 require a contract to be held between the NCC and the requesting party, who are the parties of the contract for resources approved following the 2009-02 procedure? Kind regards, Andy Davidson.
Hi Andy, There won't be a contract because it's an impossibility - that's one of the main rationales behind the proposal. We could have the NCC sign twice but that's a bit ridiculous and won't be a legal contract anyway. Best, Remco -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Andy Davidson Sent: dinsdag 24 maart 2009 18:23 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-02 New Policy Proposal (Allocating Resources to the RIPE NCC) On 24 Mar 2009, at 15:41, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
I like this better than the previous suggestion which created a new assignment type 'Assigned LIR'. Since policies like 2007-01 require a contract to be held between the NCC and the requesting party, who are the parties of the contract for resources approved following the 2009-02 procedure? Kind regards, Andy Davidson. This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.
On 25/03/2009 08:41, Remco van Mook wrote:
There won't be a contract because it's an impossibility - that's one of the main rationales behind the proposal. We could have the NCC sign twice but that's a bit ridiculous and won't be a legal contract anyway.
A couple of comments here: 1. It may be a good idea to explicitly note in the proposal that the RIPE NCC is formally exempted from signing any of the normal contracts required for number resource assignment / allocation. 2. I don't want to sound like the language fascist here, but as the proposal deals with both assignment and allocation of resources (to use the RIPE NCC terminology), it might be a good idea to use the two terms in the policy proposal. Currently the word "allocation" is used, but if the NCC is going to apply for a PI ipv6 /48, then that's an assignment. Similarly for ASNs. 3. I have a slight preference for using the Pool of Arbiters instead of the WG Chairs for the approval mechanism, purely on the grounds that smaller committees are better than bigger ones. I don't have a problem with Remco being proposer of this policy change and also being on the pool of arbiters. Just out of interest, the pool of arbiters is described here: http://www.ripe.net/membership/arbitration.html 4. Regarding the function of the approval group, there are two important requirements for RIPE NCC number resource assignment / allocation process: a. consistency with the assignment / allocation guidelines b. process transparency As it stands, the proposed process delegates the entire process of number resource approval to the approval group, with no obligation to explain or publicise their decision. I just wonder if it wouldn't be better to have a process like this: 4.1: assignment / allocation request received and processed by RIPE NCC hostmasters who will give a formal written opinion on whether the request is consistent with current assignment / allocation guidelines 4.2: this opinion is evaluated by [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] who are entitled to approve the request only if the hostmaster team find that the request is consistent with current rules. 4.3: either way, the request, the hostmaster recommendation and the reasoning of [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] is published. 4.4: if both hostmasters and [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] decline request, then petition can be made to RIPE Plenary. There are a couple of reasons for this alternative proposal. First, it's the purpose of the RIPE NCC hostmaster team to evaluate whether number requests are consistent with the rules. The [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] are not hostmasters. Secondly, the [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] should not necessarily be given sole authority to decide whether a number request is consistent with current RIPE rules; 4.2 above implies that if the RIPE NCC hostmaster team believes that a request is not justified, the [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] have no authority to override that decision. Thirdly, the reasoning and decision of the [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] should be published so that this mystical ideal of transparency is achieved. Nick
On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 11:19 +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
I just wonder if it wouldn't be better to have a process like this:
[See Nick's earlier post for details] I'm in favour of this approach. Niall O'Reilly with my WG-Chair hat on.
Dear Nick, Remco, address-policy-wg, The suggested changes Nick put forward appear sensible, and should result in a lasting framework with a less irregular process. By keeping the hostmasters in the loop, the requirement "For the purpose of evaluating, the request will be treated as if it were filed by a regular LIR." is met by the most competent authority. This, in turn, allows the Pool of Arbiters to concentrate on the merit of a request rather than policy technicalities. Therefore, I support these changes. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 25/03/2009 08:41, Remco van Mook wrote:
There won't be a contract because it's an impossibility - that's one of the main rationales behind the proposal. We could have the NCC sign twice but that's a bit ridiculous and won't be a legal contract anyway.
A couple of comments here:
1. It may be a good idea to explicitly note in the proposal that the RIPE NCC is formally exempted from signing any of the normal contracts required for number resource assignment / allocation.
2. I don't want to sound like the language fascist here, but as the proposal deals with both assignment and allocation of resources (to use the RIPE NCC terminology), it might be a good idea to use the two terms in the policy proposal. Currently the word "allocation" is used, but if the NCC is going to apply for a PI ipv6 /48, then that's an assignment. Similarly for ASNs.
3. I have a slight preference for using the Pool of Arbiters instead of the WG Chairs for the approval mechanism, purely on the grounds that smaller committees are better than bigger ones. I don't have a problem with Remco being proposer of this policy change and also being on the pool of arbiters. Just out of interest, the pool of arbiters is described here:
http://www.ripe.net/membership/arbitration.html
4. Regarding the function of the approval group, there are two important requirements for RIPE NCC number resource assignment / allocation process:
a. consistency with the assignment / allocation guidelines b. process transparency
As it stands, the proposed process delegates the entire process of number resource approval to the approval group, with no obligation to explain or publicise their decision. I just wonder if it wouldn't be better to have a process like this:
4.1: assignment / allocation request received and processed by RIPE NCC hostmasters who will give a formal written opinion on whether the request is consistent with current assignment / allocation guidelines 4.2: this opinion is evaluated by [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] who are entitled to approve the request only if the hostmaster team find that the request is consistent with current rules. 4.3: either way, the request, the hostmaster recommendation and the reasoning of [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] is published. 4.4: if both hostmasters and [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] decline request, then petition can be made to RIPE Plenary.
There are a couple of reasons for this alternative proposal. First, it's the purpose of the RIPE NCC hostmaster team to evaluate whether number requests are consistent with the rules. The [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] are not hostmasters. Secondly, the [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] should not necessarily be given sole authority to decide whether a number request is consistent with current RIPE rules; 4.2 above implies that if the RIPE NCC hostmaster team believes that a request is not justified, the [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] have no authority to override that decision. Thirdly, the reasoning and decision of the [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] should be published so that this mystical ideal of transparency is achieved.
Nick
On 25/03/2009 08:41, Remco van Mook wrote:
There won't be a contract because it's an impossibility - that's one of the main rationales behind the proposal. We could have the NCC sign twice but that's a bit ridiculous and won't be a legal contract anyway.
A couple of comments here:
1. It may be a good idea to explicitly note in the proposal that the RIPE NCC is formally exempted from signing any of the normal contracts required for number resource assignment / allocation.
2. I don't want to sound like the language fascist here, but as the proposal deals with both assignment and allocation of resources (to use the RIPE NCC terminology), it might be a good idea to use the two terms in the policy proposal. Currently the word "allocation" is used, but if the NCC is going to apply for a PI ipv6 /48, then that's an assignment. Similarly for ASNs.
3. I have a slight preference for using the Pool of Arbiters instead of the WG Chairs for the approval mechanism, purely on the grounds that smaller committees are better than bigger ones. I don't have a
with Remco being proposer of this policy change and also being on the pool of arbiters. Just out of interest, the pool of arbiters is described here:
http://www.ripe.net/membership/arbitration.html
4. Regarding the function of the approval group, there are two important requirements for RIPE NCC number resource assignment / allocation
Dear all, My apologies for not responding any quicker - getting Internet access in the middle of nowhere (which is a very nice place by the way) is hard, but getting access to company networks is even harder. I think Nicks suggestion has merit and will change the proposal accordingly. I also have a slight preference for the pool of arbiters; any comments in that respect? Kind regards, Remco -----Original Message----- From: David Monosov [mailto:davidm@futureinquestion.net] Sent: dinsdag 31 maart 2009 15:06 To: Nick Hilliard Cc: Remco van Mook; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-02 New Policy Proposal (Allocating Resources to the RIPE NCC) Dear Nick, Remco, address-policy-wg, The suggested changes Nick put forward appear sensible, and should result in a lasting framework with a less irregular process. By keeping the hostmasters in the loop, the requirement "For the purpose of evaluating, the request will be treated as if it were filed by a regular LIR." is met by the most competent authority. This, in turn, allows the Pool of Arbiters to concentrate on the merit of a request rather than policy technicalities. Therefore, I support these changes. -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov Nick Hilliard wrote: problem process:
a. consistency with the assignment / allocation guidelines b. process transparency
As it stands, the proposed process delegates the entire process of number resource approval to the approval group, with no obligation to explain or publicise their decision. I just wonder if it wouldn't be better to have a process like this:
4.1: assignment / allocation request received and processed by
NCC hostmasters who will give a formal written opinion on whether the request is consistent with current assignment / allocation guidelines 4.2: this opinion is evaluated by [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] who are entitled to approve the request only if the hostmaster team find that the request is consistent with current rules. 4.3: either way, the request, the hostmaster recommendation and
RIPE the
reasoning of [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] is published. 4.4: if both hostmasters and [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] decline request, then petition can be made to RIPE Plenary.
There are a couple of reasons for this alternative proposal. First, it's the purpose of the RIPE NCC hostmaster team to evaluate whether number requests are consistent with the rules. The [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] are not hostmasters. Secondly, the [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] should not necessarily be given sole authority to decide whether a number request is consistent with current RIPE rules; 4.2 above implies that if the RIPE NCC hostmaster team believes that a request is not justified, the [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] have no authority to override that decision. Thirdly, the reasoning and decision of the [pool of arbiters / WG chairs] should be published so that this mystical ideal of transparency is achieved.
Nick
This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.
Hi Remco,
I also have a slight preference for the pool of arbiters; any comments in that respect?
As a working group co-chair, I'm fully in favour of that change. It would appear to be a far better choice. All the best, Rob
participants (8)
-
Andy Davidson -
David Monosov -
Filiz Yilmaz -
Niall O'Reilly -
Nick Hilliard -
Remco van Mook -
Remco van Mook
-
Rob Evans