Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
Hi, I've sent this only to Marco instead of replying to the list. Please see my comments below. Ciprian On Monday, October 17, 2016, Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk> wrote:
Hi,
I think it would be useful to list on the statistics also the broker that facilitated the transfer. That might be of interest to the community and I think the NCC should revise the transfer agreement template in order to be able to mention the broker and also to publish it's name on the transfer statistics page. Also the broker should be allowed to communicate with RIPE and pass information on behalf of the customers during the transfer process.
There is also a cosmetic thing that I don't know if it needs be mentioned in policy in order to be implemented. The netname of the allocation keeps the original allocation date in it's name which can be confusing although there's the new "created" attribute.
For example, the subnet 128.0.52.0/24 was transferred on 14/10/2016 and it was part of an allocation with netname EU-JM-20120914. The new allocation has netname ES-SISTEC-20120914.
If the date is no longer relevant in a netname then I think it should be simply ES-SISTEC, otherwise it can be ES-SISTEC-20161014
Ciprian
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mschmidt@ripe.net');>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The draft documents for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC.
The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources.
Some of the differences from version 3.0 include:
- Adding a reference in all related allocation and assignment policies to the new transfer policy document - Clarification in the policy text and policy summary regarding transfers due to a change in the organisation’s business (such as a merger or acquisition)
You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04
And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to < address-policy-wg@ripe.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','address-policy-wg@ripe.net');>> before 26 October 2016.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
Hi, While I do agree with most of the concerns you present there, I'm wondering if this is not an issue to be discussed in some other working group (??? services ??? database ???). They don't seem to be related to the policy itself, but to the way RIPE NCC implements it and reflects the changes in the database. Marco ? Chairs ? anybody else ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 11:57, Ciprian Nica wrote:
Hi,
I think it would be useful to list on the statistics also the broker that facilitated the transfer. That might be of interest to the community and I think the NCC should revise the transfer agreement template in order to be able to mention the broker and also to publish it's name on the transfer statistics page. Also the broker should be allowed to communicate with RIPE and pass information on behalf of the customers during the transfer process.
There is also a cosmetic thing that I don't know if it needs be mentioned in policy in order to be implemented. The netname of the allocation keeps the original allocation date in it's name which can be confusing although there's the new "created" attribute.
For example, the subnet 128.0.52.0/24 was transferred on 14/10/2016 and it was part of an allocation with netname EU-JM-20120914. The new allocation has netname ES-SISTEC-20120914.
If the date is no longer relevant in a netname then I think it should be simply ES-SISTEC, otherwise it can be ES-SISTEC-20161014
Ciprian
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mschmidt@ripe.net');>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The draft documents for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC.
The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources.
Some of the differences from version 3.0 include:
- Adding a reference in all related allocation and assignment policies to the new transfer policy document - Clarification in the policy text and policy summary regarding transfers due to a change in the organisation’s business (such as a merger or acquisition)
You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04
And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to < address-policy-wg@ripe.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','address-policy-wg@ripe.net');>> before 26 October 2016.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
The policy states how the statistics are presented, therefore I think this issue should be addressed by the policy. RIPE NCC implements the policies and if we, the RIPE community, want some things to be implemented in a certain way then the only way to "ask" it is through the policy, otherwise our voices have no value. Regarding the lack of details at point B., that is in my opinion an insult to the community, regardless of what the policy is about. We should not accept generic statements like that. If nobody bothered to really make an impact analysis then just say it. Ciprian On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
Hi,
While I do agree with most of the concerns you present there, I'm wondering if this is not an issue to be discussed in some other working group (??? services ??? database ???). They don't seem to be related to the policy itself, but to the way RIPE NCC implements it and reflects the changes in the database.
Marco ? Chairs ? anybody else ?
-- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 11:57, Ciprian Nica wrote:
Hi,
I think it would be useful to list on the statistics also the broker that facilitated the transfer. That might be of interest to the community and I think the NCC should revise the transfer agreement template in order to be able to mention the broker and also to publish it's name on the transfer statistics page. Also the broker should be allowed to communicate with RIPE and pass information on behalf of the customers during the transfer process.
There is also a cosmetic thing that I don't know if it needs be mentioned in policy in order to be implemented. The netname of the allocation keeps the original allocation date in it's name which can be confusing although there's the new "created" attribute.
For example, the subnet 128.0.52.0/24 was transferred on 14/10/2016 and it was part of an allocation with netname EU-JM-20120914. The new allocation has netname ES-SISTEC-20120914.
If the date is no longer relevant in a netname then I think it should be simply ES-SISTEC, otherwise it can be ES-SISTEC-20161014
Ciprian
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net <javascript:;> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mschmidt@ripe.net <javascript:;>');>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The draft documents for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC.
The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources.
Some of the differences from version 3.0 include:
- Adding a reference in all related allocation and assignment policies to the new transfer policy document - Clarification in the policy text and policy summary regarding transfers due to a change in the organisation’s business (such as a merger or acquisition)
You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04
And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to < address-policy-wg@ripe.net <javascript:;> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','address-policy-wg@ripe.net <javascript:;>');>> before 26 October 2016.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
Regarding this policy I think it clearly states in the beginning: "The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources." I congratulate Erik for it and I think it is very useful to have a single document that would address all situations. But we have to make it clear. Is 2015-04's purpose just to better organise information or to change policies ? If you would have just done what the goal express I think it would have been the first policy that would not get only consensus but unanimity. But when you slip in some changes, then it's a different thing. I agree that many things are not very clear and that there are things that can be improved. This however should be debated properly and maybe it should be done one step at a time through other policy proposals. To resume, if you would change the policy text to stick to it's goal you'd have my +100 (as I see it's getting more popular these days than the classical +1) :) But since this text brings changes I can only give a -1 for not sticking to the goal and for bringing changes that should be treated more careful, not just let's do it quickly however we can and we'll figure out on the way. Why not make good, permanent changes which are expected by many of the community. Ciprian On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk> wrote:
The policy states how the statistics are presented, therefore I think this issue should be addressed by the policy.
RIPE NCC implements the policies and if we, the RIPE community, want some things to be implemented in a certain way then the only way to "ask" it is through the policy, otherwise our voices have no value.
Regarding the lack of details at point B., that is in my opinion an insult to the community, regardless of what the policy is about. We should not accept generic statements like that. If nobody bothered to really make an impact analysis then just say it.
Ciprian
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
Hi,
While I do agree with most of the concerns you present there, I'm wondering if this is not an issue to be discussed in some other working group (??? services ??? database ???). They don't seem to be related to the policy itself, but to the way RIPE NCC implements it and reflects the changes in the database.
Marco ? Chairs ? anybody else ?
-- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 11:57, Ciprian Nica wrote:
Hi,
I think it would be useful to list on the statistics also the broker that facilitated the transfer. That might be of interest to the community and I think the NCC should revise the transfer agreement template in order to be able to mention the broker and also to publish it's name on the transfer statistics page. Also the broker should be allowed to communicate with RIPE and pass information on behalf of the customers during the transfer process.
There is also a cosmetic thing that I don't know if it needs be mentioned in policy in order to be implemented. The netname of the allocation keeps the original allocation date in it's name which can be confusing although there's the new "created" attribute.
For example, the subnet 128.0.52.0/24 was transferred on 14/10/2016 and it was part of an allocation with netname EU-JM-20120914. The new allocation has netname ES-SISTEC-20120914.
If the date is no longer relevant in a netname then I think it should be simply ES-SISTEC, otherwise it can be ES-SISTEC-20161014
Ciprian
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mschmidt@ripe.net');>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The draft documents for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC.
The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources.
Some of the differences from version 3.0 include:
- Adding a reference in all related allocation and assignment policies to the new transfer policy document - Clarification in the policy text and policy summary regarding transfers due to a change in the organisation’s business (such as a merger or acquisition)
You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04
And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to < address-policy-wg@ripe.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','address-policy-wg@ripe.net');>> before 26 October 2016.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
Hi Ciprian, The goal of the policy have been discussed on the list and in the RIPE meetings … so trying to de-rail the process this late in the game, while you were present at the other meetings by saying that it isn’t clear … it’s valid anymore.. Because as you may remember that was already addressed when it was brought up by Elvis 2 RIPE meetings ago .. and it was addressed at that point. Regards, Erik Bais Van: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Ciprian Nica Verzonden: woensdag 19 oktober 2016 19:10 Aan: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) Regarding this policy I think it clearly states in the beginning: "The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources." I congratulate Erik for it and I think it is very useful to have a single document that would address all situations. But we have to make it clear. Is 2015-04's purpose just to better organise information or to change policies ? If you would have just done what the goal express I think it would have been the first policy that would not get only consensus but unanimity. But when you slip in some changes, then it's a different thing. I agree that many things are not very clear and that there are things that can be improved. This however should be debated properly and maybe it should be done one step at a time through other policy proposals. To resume, if you would change the policy text to stick to it's goal you'd have my +100 (as I see it's getting more popular these days than the classical +1) :) But since this text brings changes I can only give a -1 for not sticking to the goal and for bringing changes that should be treated more careful, not just let's do it quickly however we can and we'll figure out on the way. Why not make good, permanent changes which are expected by many of the community. Ciprian On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk <mailto:office@ip-broker.uk> > wrote: The policy states how the statistics are presented, therefore I think this issue should be addressed by the policy. RIPE NCC implements the policies and if we, the RIPE community, want some things to be implemented in a certain way then the only way to "ask" it is through the policy, otherwise our voices have no value. Regarding the lack of details at point B., that is in my opinion an insult to the community, regardless of what the policy is about. We should not accept generic statements like that. If nobody bothered to really make an impact analysis then just say it. Ciprian On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net <mailto:ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> > wrote: Hi, While I do agree with most of the concerns you present there, I'm wondering if this is not an issue to be discussed in some other working group (??? services ??? database ???). They don't seem to be related to the policy itself, but to the way RIPE NCC implements it and reflects the changes in the database. Marco ? Chairs ? anybody else ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 11:57, Ciprian Nica wrote:
Hi,
I think it would be useful to list on the statistics also the broker that facilitated the transfer. That might be of interest to the community and I think the NCC should revise the transfer agreement template in order to be able to mention the broker and also to publish it's name on the transfer statistics page. Also the broker should be allowed to communicate with RIPE and pass information on behalf of the customers during the transfer process.
There is also a cosmetic thing that I don't know if it needs be mentioned in policy in order to be implemented. The netname of the allocation keeps the original allocation date in it's name which can be confusing although there's the new "created" attribute.
For example, the subnet 128.0.52.0/24 <http://128.0.52.0/24> was transferred on 14/10/2016 and it was part of an allocation with netname EU-JM-20120914. The new allocation has netname ES-SISTEC-20120914.
If the date is no longer relevant in a netname then I think it should be simply ES-SISTEC, otherwise it can be ES-SISTEC-20161014
Ciprian
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net <mailto:mschmidt@ripe.net%0b> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mschmidt@ripe.net');>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The draft documents for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC.
The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources.
Some of the differences from version 3.0 include:
- Adding a reference in all related allocation and assignment policies to the new transfer policy document - Clarification in the policy text and policy summary regarding transfers due to a change in the organisation’s business (such as a merger or acquisition)
You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04
And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to < address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','address-policy-wg@ripe.net');>> before 26 October 2016.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
Hi Ciprian,
The goal of the policy have been discussed on the list and in the RIPE meetings … so trying to de-rail the process this late in the game, while you were present at the other meetings by saying that it isn’t clear … it’s valid anymore..
I'm not tring to derail anything. Why is it so late in the game ? The final proposal was recently published. This policy is relatively "old" and suffered many changes so it's no point in commenting the previous versions. I'm talking about the final, 4th version and it's the open discussion
Hi, On Sunday, October 23, 2016, Erik Bais <ebais@a2b-internet.com> wrote: phase. Aren't we supposed to discuss it ?
Because as you may remember that was already addressed when it was brought up by Elvis 2 RIPE meetings ago .. and it was addressed at that point.
Was that this version of the policy ? No and I think that if this was
addressed a year ago you could have changes the policy to correctly express it's goals. Ciprian
Regards,
Erik Bais
*Van:* address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net');>] *Namens *Ciprian Nica *Verzonden:* woensdag 19 oktober 2016 19:10 *Aan:* address-policy-wg@ripe.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','address-policy-wg@ripe.net');> *Onderwerp:* Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
Regarding this policy I think it clearly states in the beginning: "The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources."
I congratulate Erik for it and I think it is very useful to have a single document that would address all situations. But we have to make it clear. Is 2015-04's purpose just to better organise information or to change policies ?
If you would have just done what the goal express I think it would have been the first policy that would not get only consensus but unanimity.
But when you slip in some changes, then it's a different thing. I agree that many things are not very clear and that there are things that can be improved. This however should be debated properly and maybe it should be done one step at a time through other policy proposals.
To resume, if you would change the policy text to stick to it's goal you'd have my +100 (as I see it's getting more popular these days than the classical +1) :)
But since this text brings changes I can only give a -1 for not sticking to the goal and for bringing changes that should be treated more careful, not just let's do it quickly however we can and we'll figure out on the way. Why not make good, permanent changes which are expected by many of the community.
Ciprian
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','office@ip-broker.uk');>> wrote:
The policy states how the statistics are presented, therefore I think this issue should be addressed by the policy.
RIPE NCC implements the policies and if we, the RIPE community, want some things to be implemented in a certain way then the only way to "ask" it is through the policy, otherwise our voices have no value.
Regarding the lack of details at point B., that is in my opinion an insult to the community, regardless of what the policy is about. We should not accept generic statements like that. If nobody bothered to really make an impact analysis then just say it.
Ciprian
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net');>> wrote:
Hi,
While I do agree with most of the concerns you present there, I'm wondering if this is not an issue to be discussed in some other working group (??? services ??? database ???). They don't seem to be related to the policy itself, but to the way RIPE NCC implements it and reflects the changes in the database.
Marco ? Chairs ? anybody else ?
-- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 11:57, Ciprian Nica wrote:
Hi,
I think it would be useful to list on the statistics also the broker that facilitated the transfer. That might be of interest to the community and I think the NCC should revise the transfer agreement template in order to be able to mention the broker and also to publish it's name on the transfer statistics page. Also the broker should be allowed to communicate with RIPE and pass information on behalf of the customers during the transfer process.
There is also a cosmetic thing that I don't know if it needs be mentioned in policy in order to be implemented. The netname of the allocation keeps the original allocation date in it's name which can be confusing although there's the new "created" attribute.
For example, the subnet 128.0.52.0/24 was transferred on 14/10/2016 and it was part of an allocation with netname EU-JM-20120914. The new allocation has netname ES-SISTEC-20120914.
If the date is no longer relevant in a netname then I think it should be simply ES-SISTEC, otherwise it can be ES-SISTEC-20161014
Ciprian
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mschmidt@ripe.net%5Cx0b');>> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mschmidt@ripe.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mschmidt@ripe.net');>');>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The draft documents for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC.
The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources.
Some of the differences from version 3.0 include:
- Adding a reference in all related allocation and assignment policies to the new transfer policy document - Clarification in the policy text and policy summary regarding transfers due to a change in the organisation’s business (such as a merger or acquisition)
You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04
And the draft documents at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04/draft
We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to < address-policy-wg@ripe.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','address-policy-wg@ripe.net');> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','address-policy-wg@ripe.net <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','address-policy-wg@ripe.net');>');>> before 26 October 2016.
Regards
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
Hi Ciprian,
On Monday, October 17, 2016, Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk> wrote: Hi,
I think it would be useful to list on the statistics also the broker that facilitated the transfer.
When we made the parts that needed to be published in the transfer statistics, that have crossed my mind, but I failed to see what the benefit is for the community. I can understand from your point why you would ask this, but I'm not going to take this suggestion in this policy. The transfers are between offering and receiving parties.. the facilitators are not a part in this process, except in the financial agreements. Price is also not mentioned or what the BGP routing vendor is that is used for the new prefix.. On the topic of the netname : if you want the netname to be changed, you can open a ticket with the Hostmaster during the transfer to make that happen. No need to put that in policy. Regards, Erik Bais
Hi, On Sunday, October 23, 2016, Erik Bais <ebais@a2b-internet.com> wrote:
Hi Ciprian,
On Monday, October 17, 2016, Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk <javascript:;>> wrote: Hi,
I think it would be useful to list on the statistics also the broker that facilitated the transfer.
When we made the parts that needed to be published in the transfer statistics, that have crossed my mind, but I failed to see what the benefit is for the community.
I can understand from your point why you would ask this, but I'm not going to take this suggestion in this policy.
I am also a member of this community, besides being your competitor and although you wouldn't like people to see that I've brokered the most
The benefit would be that the community can make an idea about whether a broker's info can be reliable or not. There are brokers that never brokered a transaction. transfers, it's quite possible you would broker more transfers than me in the future. We all do our jobs good and my proposal is not just for advertising, I really think people would like to see it.
The transfers are between offering and receiving parties.. the facilitators are not a part in this process, except in the financial agreements. Price is also not mentioned or what the BGP routing vendor is that is used for the new prefix..
I don't know about other brokers but I'm not getting my commission just for puttig 2 parties at the table. We are part of the process, we assist both seller and buyer and we follow every step of the transaction, although we're not allowed by NCC to communicate on behalf of our customers.
On the topic of the netname : if you want the netname to be changed, you can open a ticket with the Hostmaster during the transfer to make that happen. No need to put that in policy.
I think the idea would be to have this by default and not request it every time. I also think that at least the law enforcement agencies (from my past cooperation with them in the past) would benefit of this clarification. Ciprian
Hi, Feel free to adjust the policy in a new policy proposal, if you think it is vital for the future. As the author of this policy I’m not going to include it in this one. The transfer statistics isn’t a contest between brokers/facilitators or a place for advertising in my opinion. But don’t let my opinion on that keep you from writing your own policy proposal. Regards, Erik Bais Van: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Ciprian Nica Verzonden: zondag 23 oktober 2016 16:40 Aan: Erik Bais <ebais@a2b-internet.com> CC: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) Hi, On Sunday, October 23, 2016, Erik Bais <ebais@a2b-internet.com <mailto:ebais@a2b-internet.com> > wrote: Hi Ciprian,
On Monday, October 17, 2016, Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk <javascript:;> > wrote: Hi,
I think it would be useful to list on the statistics also the broker that facilitated the transfer.
When we made the parts that needed to be published in the transfer statistics, that have crossed my mind, but I failed to see what the benefit is for the community. The benefit would be that the community can make an idea about whether a broker's info can be reliable or not. There are brokers that never brokered a transaction. I can understand from your point why you would ask this, but I'm not going to take this suggestion in this policy. I am also a member of this community, besides being your competitor and although you wouldn't like people to see that I've brokered the most transfers, it's quite possible you would broker more transfers than me in the future. We all do our jobs good and my proposal is not just for advertising, I really think people would like to see it. The transfers are between offering and receiving parties.. the facilitators are not a part in this process, except in the financial agreements. Price is also not mentioned or what the BGP routing vendor is that is used for the new prefix.. I don't know about other brokers but I'm not getting my commission just for puttig 2 parties at the table. We are part of the process, we assist both seller and buyer and we follow every step of the transaction, although we're not allowed by NCC to communicate on behalf of our customers. On the topic of the netname : if you want the netname to be changed, you can open a ticket with the Hostmaster during the transfer to make that happen. No need to put that in policy. I think the idea would be to have this by default and not request it every time. I also think that at least the law enforcement agencies (from my past cooperation with them in the past) would benefit of this clarification. Ciprian
Hi Ciprian - On 23.10.2016 16:39, Ciprian Nica wrote:
On Sunday, October 23, 2016, Erik Bais <ebais@a2b-internet.com <mailto:ebais@a2b-internet.com>> wrote: When we made the parts that needed to be published in the transfer statistics, that have crossed my mind, but I failed to see what the benefit is for the community.
The benefit would be that the community can make an idea about whether a broker's info can be reliable or not. There are brokers that never brokered a transaction.
from this point of view, I could call myself a mathematician, a knitter, a carpenter, a plumber and a rocket scientist at the same time. It's just that I haven't yet carried out either one of their usual tasks and activities. The reality is: a broker that hasn't brokered any deal yet, is most likely not (yet) a broker, but for the time being just a wannabe-broker at best.
I can understand from your point why you would ask this, but I'm not going to take this suggestion in this policy.
I am also a member of this community, besides being your competitor and although you wouldn't like people to see that I've brokered the most transfers, it's quite possible you would broker more transfers than me in the future. We all do our jobs good and my proposal is not just for advertising, I really think people would like to see it.
I'd also love to get ad space for free from the RIPE NCC for my business, but won't and don't even want to. As such, e.g. real estate agents are not mentioned in the official land register either. I do see, however, your point that people may want to background check their IP broker of potential choice: for this purpose I'd like to suggest the formation of an IP Broker association that would define quality definitions, measurements and such - as e.g. the above mentioned real estate agents have already given numerous good examples for. But please do not overload the NCC's tray here - I do fully agree with Erik in this regard. Best, -C.
Hi, On Monday, October 24, 2016, Carsten Schiefner <ripe-wgs.cs@schiefner.de> wrote:
Hi Ciprian -
On 23.10.2016 16:39, Ciprian Nica wrote:
On Sunday, October 23, 2016, Erik Bais <ebais@a2b-internet.com <javascript:;> <mailto:ebais@a2b-internet.com <javascript:;>>> wrote: When we made the parts that needed to be published in the transfer statistics, that have crossed my mind, but I failed to see what the benefit is for the community.
The benefit would be that the community can make an idea about whether a broker's info can be reliable or not. There are brokers that never brokered a transaction.
from this point of view, I could call myself a mathematician, a knitter, a carpenter, a plumber and a rocket scientist at the same time. It's just that I haven't yet carried out either one of their usual tasks and activities.
The reality is: a broker that hasn't brokered any deal yet, is most likely not (yet) a broker, but for the time being just a wannabe-broker at best.
Agree, and there are many of them.
I can understand from your point why you would ask this, but I'm not going to take this suggestion in this policy.
I am also a member of this community, besides being your competitor and although you wouldn't like people to see that I've brokered the most transfers, it's quite possible you would broker more transfers than me in the future. We all do our jobs good and my proposal is not just for advertising, I really think people would like to see it.
I'd also love to get ad space for free from the RIPE NCC for my business, but won't and don't even want to. As such, e.g. real estate agents are not mentioned in the official land register either.
The free ad space is already there. There is a list of brokers on ripe website.
I do see, however, your point that people may want to background check their IP broker of potential choice: for this purpose I'd like to suggest the formation of an IP Broker association that would define quality definitions, measurements and such - as e.g. the above mentioned real estate agents have already given numerous good examples for.
I don't think that would be easy to achieve but it's a good idea.
But please do not overload the NCC's tray here - I do fully agree with Erik in this regard.
There is, though, an important thing which I think the policy needs to address. The broker should be allowed to discuss with ripe on behalf of his customers. It has happened several times that we had customers who don't understand english very well and many times they would just ask us to write the reply and they would simply copy/paste it. It would help if ripe would allow us to directly pass on information and answer ripe's questions. Ciprian
Hi Ciprian - On 24.10.2016 10:08, Ciprian Nica wrote:
I'd also love to get ad space for free from the RIPE NCC for my business, but won't and don't even want to. As such, e.g. real estate agents are not mentioned in the official land register either.
The free ad space is already there. There is a list of brokers on ripe website.
yepp, there indeed is one; at: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/tran... - still, that list itself is IMHO as neutral and impartial as possible. And it is clear how to get on this list. When the notion of "who did it" in the stats is not. Not likely at least. At least it is no necessary information for the documentation of a successful transfer, I firmly believe. Best, -C.
Hi Ciprian - On 24.10.2016 10:08, Ciprian Nica wrote:
There is, though, an important thing which I think the policy needs to address. The broker should be allowed to discuss with ripe on behalf of his customers. It has happened several times that we had customers who don't understand english very well and many times they would just ask us to write the reply and they would simply copy/paste it. It would help if ripe would allow us to directly pass on information and answer ripe's questions.
I do see your point - but I guess, that would require some proper authorization of the broker by Power of Attorny or sth. similar from the buyer and/or seller. Feel free to come up with a separate proposal to get this into the policy. But I am afraid that this might be non-trivial as the NCC services region covers multiple jurisdiction. OTOH, I am sure that the NCC's Legal Dept. will assist you in formulating the requirements if you ask nicely. :-) Best, -C.
Hi Ciprian,
There is, though, an important thing which I think the policy needs to address. The broker should be allowed to discuss with ripe on behalf of his customers. It has happened several times that we had customers who don't understand english very well and many times they would just ask us to write the reply and they would simply copy/paste it. It would help if ripe would allow us to directly pass on information and answer ripe's questions.
Your customer can add you as an official contact in the LIR Portal if necessary. That is the way LIRs can define who is permitted to speak on their behalf. I have done that in the past: got added as a contact, handled the case for them, and then was removed as a contact again. I can imagine that not all LIRs are comfortable doing that, but in that case the communication should go through the LIRs existing contacts anyway. As there are already existing authorisation mechanisms for who can speak on behalf of an LIR I don't see the need to create a new one specifically for brokers. Cheers, Sander
Hi Sander, On 24.10.2016 16:17, Sander Steffann wrote:
Your customer can add you as an official contact in the LIR Portal if necessary. That is the way LIRs can define who is permitted to speak on their behalf. I have done that in the past: got added as a contact, handled the case for them, and then was removed as a contact again. I can imagine that not all LIRs are comfortable doing that, but in that case the communication should go through the LIRs existing contacts anyway.
As there are already existing authorisation mechanisms for who can speak on behalf of an LIR I don't see the need to create a new one specifically for brokers.
excellent idea! Gets rid of all that PoA stuff immediately. At times, one just cannot see the wood for the all the trees... :-) Best, -C.
From our experience the need is just to "translate" (figurative and not)
Hi, Actually there were cases where we did like that, being put as a contact for the LIR. I don't think this should be the solution as it doesn't seem adequate at least. There were also cases where we would have to "speak" on behalf of both parties so it would be awkward if not unprofessional to be a contact person for both sides. the messages between NCC and LIRs. It is a situation we meet often and I think it should be addressed in a clear procedural way. I don't agree with using tricks. Ciprian On Monday, October 24, 2016, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Hi Ciprian,
There is, though, an important thing which I think the policy needs to address. The broker should be allowed to discuss with ripe on behalf of his customers. It has happened several times that we had customers who don't understand english very well and many times they would just ask us to write the reply and they would simply copy/paste it. It would help if ripe would allow us to directly pass on information and answer ripe's questions.
Your customer can add you as an official contact in the LIR Portal if necessary. That is the way LIRs can define who is permitted to speak on their behalf. I have done that in the past: got added as a contact, handled the case for them, and then was removed as a contact again. I can imagine that not all LIRs are comfortable doing that, but in that case the communication should go through the LIRs existing contacts anyway.
As there are already existing authorisation mechanisms for who can speak on behalf of an LIR I don't see the need to create a new one specifically for brokers.
Cheers, Sander
Hi Ciprian,
Actually there were cases where we did like that, being put as a contact for the LIR. I don't think this should be the solution as it doesn't seem adequate at least. There were also cases where we would have to "speak" on behalf of both parties so it would be awkward if not unprofessional to be a contact person for both sides.
This sentence does not parse. You have to speak on behalf of parties but you cannot be a contact person for them? That doesn't make sense. If you feel that is awkward or unprofessional to speak on behalf of both then don't. Get a separate broker that represents the other party. But in what you wrote above you contradict yourself.
From our experience the need is just to "translate" (figurative and not) the messages between NCC and LIRs. It is a situation we meet often and I think it should be addressed in a clear procedural way. I don't agree with using tricks.
This is not a trick. If you can speak on behalf of an LIR then you are a contact and should be registered as such. Cheers, Sander
I'll be short as I'm assisting an interesting presentation ;) What I meant is that it's not "right" to be a contact person for them since I'm not the one making decisions. I'm an interface and I should be able to represent, help, interact but I feel by not allowing this, we're going too far with the "contact person" trick (solution). Ciprian On Monday, October 24, 2016, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Hi Ciprian,
Actually there were cases where we did like that, being put as a contact for the LIR. I don't think this should be the solution as it doesn't seem adequate at least. There were also cases where we would have to "speak" on behalf of both parties so it would be awkward if not unprofessional to be a contact person for both sides.
This sentence does not parse. You have to speak on behalf of parties but you cannot be a contact person for them? That doesn't make sense. If you feel that is awkward or unprofessional to speak on behalf of both then don't. Get a separate broker that represents the other party. But in what you wrote above you contradict yourself.
From our experience the need is just to "translate" (figurative and not) the messages between NCC and LIRs. It is a situation we meet often and I think it should be addressed in a clear procedural way. I don't agree with using tricks.
This is not a trick. If you can speak on behalf of an LIR then you are a contact and should be registered as such.
Cheers, Sander
Hi,
I'll be short as I'm assisting an interesting presentation ;)
What I meant is that it's not "right" to be a contact person for them since I'm not the one making decisions. I'm an interface and I should be able to represent, help, interact but I feel by not allowing this, we're going too far with the "contact person" trick (solution).
Well, the NCC needs to know who is authoritative to speak for the customer. If it's you then you are a contact, if not then the NCC can not talk to you because you're not authoritative. In that case you will have to assist the LIR from the sideline. You can't have both at the same time. Cheers, Sander
Hi, We have seen the "contact" method here at ARIN. In the past we were able to meet the needs of our clients with a Letter of Agency for ARIN. Not sure if that would fly anymore, though. What about a Letter of Agency at RIPE? Regards, Mike Burns -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sander Steffann Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 1:37 PM To: Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk> Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Working Group <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) Hi,
I'll be short as I'm assisting an interesting presentation ;)
What I meant is that it's not "right" to be a contact person for them since I'm not the one making decisions. I'm an interface and I should be able to represent, help, interact but I feel by not allowing this, we're going too far with the "contact person" trick (solution).
Well, the NCC needs to know who is authoritative to speak for the customer. If it's you then you are a contact, if not then the NCC can not talk to you because you're not authoritative. In that case you will have to assist the LIR from the sideline. You can't have both at the same time. Cheers, Sander
participants (6)
-
Carsten Schiefner -
Ciprian Nica -
Erik Bais -
Mike Burns -
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN -
Sander Steffann