Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
Hi Alex. I'm under the impression that you're the right guy to ask about this, but please do forward this message if appropriate. Quoting from 2012-05's impact analysis: «It is worth mentioning that the RIPE NCC is willing to publish details on resource transfers and a report has not been requested so far. Only one transfer has been recorded in the RIPE NCC service region recently, and this is why no details on resource transfers have been published so far.» I'm hereby requesting the details on the transfer mentioned. In particular, I'd like to know the date of the transfer, which specific prefix(es) it involved, and the origin and destination LIRs. I'd like this information in order to try to confirm my belief that this information is possible to extract from the stats files already available on the FTP. Also, if there has been more transfers since the impact analysis was written, I'd like to see their details, as well. If possible, I would prefer to see a daily updated (and easy to parse) text file with all the transfers and their details being made available on the FTP. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
Dear Tore,
Quoting from 2012-05's impact analysis:
«It is worth mentioning that the RIPE NCC is willing to publish details on resource transfers and a report has not been requested so far. Only one transfer has been recorded in the RIPE NCC service region recently, and this is why no details on resource transfers have been published so far.»
I'm hereby requesting the details on the transfer mentioned. In particular, I'd like to know the date of the transfer, which specific prefix(es) it involved, and the origin and destination LIRs. I'd like this information in order to try to confirm my belief that this information is possible to extract from the stats files already available on the FTP.
Also, if there has been more transfers since the impact analysis was written, I'd like to see their details, as well. If possible, I would prefer to see a daily updated (and easy to parse) text file with all the transfers and their details being made available on the FTP.
Publishing this information as a daily updated file on our FTP or web site is most likely the format that the RIPE NCC would prefer as well. However, given this proposal and the discussion around it, we would prefer to wait until it reaches a conclusion before publishing. We already publish various files that reflect the state of the RIPE registry: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/ ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/stats/membership/alloclist.txt ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ Comparing different versions of these files will show any transfers that were done under the transfer policy. It would however also show the results of the various types of mergers, acquisitions and divestments that also happen on a regular basis. I hope this answers your questions for now. Best regards, Alex Le Heux Policy Implementation and Co-ordination RIPE NCC
Good morning Alex,
Quoting from 2012-05's impact analysis:
«It is worth mentioning that the RIPE NCC is willing to publish details on resource transfers and a report has not been requested so far. Only one transfer has been recorded in the RIPE NCC service region recently, and this is why no details on resource transfers have been published so far.»
* Alex Le Heux
However, given this proposal and the discussion around it, we would prefer to wait until it reaches a conclusion before publishing.
Okay. This surprises me a bit, though. The impact analysis seems to me to state, essentially, «we are willing to publish the requested information without a clear policy mandate from the community». However, your response seems to suggest the exact opposite, i.e., «we are NOT willing to publish the requested information without a policy clear mandate from the community». I don't believe anyone is proposing to *forbid* you from publishing information on transfers, the way I see it, the question is simply whether or not the community needs to compel you (through policy) to publish it, or not. In my opinion, it would be much more preferable to not have to take the policy route, since the terser and concise the policy text is, the better it is. The community shouldn't need to micro-manage the NCC through policy - it would be better and more efficient if we could instead work directly with you to get what we want. But now I am not so sure on whether or not the added policy text is required after all. Do you see any outcome of this proposal's discussion that would cause you to not publish the requested information after all?
We already publish various files that reflect the state of the RIPE registry:
ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/ ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/stats/membership/alloclist.txt ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/
Comparing different versions of these files will show any transfers that were done under the transfer policy. It would however also show the results of the various types of mergers, acquisitions and divestments that also happen on a regular basis.
I am aware of these files, and have been digging through them already in search of the transfer in question. The problem with them, as you point out, is that it is difficult to tell a "pure" transfer apart from other types of business transactions. Looking back to mid-June, the most likely candidates I find are: 1) 109.109.144.0/20 (uk.layershift -> uk.gemsoft, 2012-06-19) 2) 91.145.32.0/19 (se.helsingenet -> se.hnet-ovan, 2012-08-29) 3) 82.164.192.0/18 (no.telenor -> no.eab, 2012-10-17) 4) 82.196.28.0/22 (fr.inetwork -> fr.edxnetwork, 2012-10-30) #4 can't be the one the Impact Analysis refers to as it is too recent, and all the others seems to be related in other ways (e.g., same ASN for the route objects). If I were to make a guess, I'd put my money on #3, as the recipient LIRs in #1 and #2 hold only the single transferred resource, making me suspect those transactions are due to the origin LIRs' organisations splitting in two. However, all the allocations mentioned above are listed with the original date of allocation in both alloclist.txt and delegated-ripencc-extended. I could not find a single transaction where the date changed to the present day (except those blocks that went through the "reserved" state, which I guess means returned to the NCC and re-allocated normally). So while I won't ask you to confirm whether or not any of the above transactions are indeed the transfer the Impact Analysis refers to, I was wondering if you could tell whether or not the date of the allocation will remain unchanged as a result of a transfer?
I hope this answers your questions for now.
Not really. I ended up with more questions than I had to begin with. ;-) Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
However, given this proposal and the discussion around it, we would prefer to wait until it reaches a conclusion before publishing. Okay. This surprises me a bit, though. The impact analysis seems to me to state, essentially, «we are willing to publish the requested information without a clear policy mandate from the community».
However, your response seems to suggest the exact opposite, i.e., «we are NOT willing to publish the requested information without a policy clear mandate from the community».
I don't believe anyone is proposing to *forbid* you from publishing information on transfers, the way I see it, the question is simply whether or not the community needs to compel you (through policy) to publish it, or not. In my opinion, it would be much more preferable to not have to take the policy route, since the terser and concise the policy text is, the better it is. The community shouldn't need to micro-manage the NCC through policy - it would be better and more efficient if we could instead work directly with you to get what we want.
But now I am not so sure on whether or not the added policy text is required after all. Do you see any outcome of this proposal's discussion that would cause you to not publish the requested information after all? Publishing the names of the few organisations that were involved in a
Dear Tore, Apologies for the late reply. transfer, in an ad-hoc manner on a public mailing list, seems premature since the discussion has not yet reached a conclusion, and some opposition has been voiced. As indicated in the impact analysis, the RIPE NCC can publish information regarding transfers on ftp.ripe.net with or without a policy but would inform the community and membership in advance. However, now that there is an ongoing policy proposal, we should wait for the outcome of that discussion before making any decision. [...]
However, all the allocations mentioned above are listed with the original date of allocation in both alloclist.txt and delegated-ripencc-extended. I could not find a single transaction where the date changed to the present day (except those blocks that went through the "reserved" state, which I guess means returned to the NCC and re-allocated normally). So while I won't ask you to confirm whether or not any of the above transactions are indeed the transfer the Impact Analysis refers to, I was wondering if you could tell whether or not the date of the allocation will remain unchanged as a result of a transfer?
We have not updated the allocation date of the transfers that we have done so far. Best regards, Ingrid Wijte Registration Services Assistant Manager RIPE NCC
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Ingrid Wijte <ingrid@ripe.net> wrote:
As indicated in the impact analysis, the RIPE NCC can publish information regarding transfers on ftp.ripe.net with or without a policy but would inform the community and membership in advance. However, now that there is an ongoing policy proposal, we should wait for the outcome of that discussion before making any decision.
So, in essence, you will not voluntarily publish this information unless you are compelled to do so? This seems slightly kafkaesque to me. -- Jan
Dear Jan, Just to clarify our position a bit here. We are willing and able to publish the information. But the fact remains that there is now a policy proposal being discussed in the community that specifically deals with making this information publicly available. It doesn't make much sense for us to go ahead and publish the information in a different format before we know the outcome of the policy proposal. Regards, Ingrid Wijte Registration Services Assistant manager RIPE NCC On 11/5/12 3:25 PM, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Ingrid Wijte <ingrid@ripe.net <mailto:ingrid@ripe.net>> wrote:
As indicated in the impact analysis, the RIPE NCC can publish information regarding transfers on ftp.ripe.net <http://ftp.ripe.net> with or without a policy but would inform the community and membership in advance. However, now that there is an ongoing policy proposal, we should wait for the outcome of that discussion before making any decision.
So, in essence, you will not voluntarily publish this information unless you are compelled to do so?
This seems slightly kafkaesque to me.
-- Jan
* Ingrid Wijte
Just to clarify our position a bit here. We are willing and able to publish the information. But the fact remains that there is now a policy proposal being discussed in the community that specifically deals with making this information publicly available. It doesn't make much sense for us to go ahead and publish the information in a different format before we know the outcome of the policy proposal.
Hi, I would like the list of transfers to be made public, but I would at the same time prefer that this proposal did *not* pass, because if you are willing to publish the information anyway, there's really no need to add more policy text - we have enough text in the policy as it is. However, now I'm faced with a dilemma. If I (and others) object to this proposal so that it ends up not passing, I worry that the NCC would then opt *not* to publish the information - considering that the community would then have just rejected a proposal that told you to do so, it would not be all that surprising if you interpret that as the message from the community is «don't make this information public». However, if you will go ahead and publish information after this proposal is finished - even if it failed! - you might as well go ahead and do it right now, since you'll end up publishing no matter what. I hope that made sense to you... However, if it is the determination of the format/syntax of the published data that is the only thing that's stopping you from publishing right now, then I have a suggestion: Make a mock transfer list based on your current understanding of the proposal, and then maybe, if the proposer agrees it will give him the information he want to see made public, he could withdraw the proposal in exchange for you starting to publishing the real list immediately afterwards. This ought to keep everyone happy: - Proposer and the rest of the community gets access to all the information we want, and much faster than if we had to wait for the PDP to complete - No addition of extraneous text to the policy document - No need for micro management of the NCC Does this sound like a reasonable path forward? (this question is meant both for the proposer and the NCC) -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
Tore, Lets imagine that information about transfers published on FTP. Which benefits will have community? Put in Excel and make graph of transfers per month in count of IPs and numbers of transfers? I think this information anyway will be published in RIPE reports. I don't see other benefits. -- Alexey Ivanov 07.11.2012 18:50 - Tore Anderson написал(а): * Ingrid Wijte
Just to clarify our position a bit here. We are willing and able to publish the information. But the fact remains that there is now a policy proposal being discussed in the community that specifically deals with making this information publicly available. It doesn't make much sense for us to go ahead and publish the information in a different format before we know the outcome of the policy proposal.
Hi, I would like the list of transfers to be made public, but I would at the same time prefer that this proposal did *not* pass, because if you are willing to publish the information anyway, there's really no need to add more policy text - we have enough text in the policy as it is. However, now I'm faced with a dilemma. If I (and others) object to this proposal so that it ends up not passing, I worry that the NCC would then opt *not* to publish the information - considering that the community would then have just rejected a proposal that told you to do so, it would not be all that surprising if you interpret that as the message from the community is «don't make this information public». However, if you will go ahead and publish information after this proposal is finished - even if it failed! - you might as well go ahead and do it right now, since you'll end up publishing no matter what. I hope that made sense to you... However, if it is the determination of the format/syntax of the published data that is the only thing that's stopping you from publishing right now, then I have a suggestion: Make a mock transfer list based on your current understanding of the proposal, and then maybe, if the proposer agrees it will give him the information he want to see made public, he could withdraw the proposal in exchange for you starting to publishing the real list immediately afterwards. This ought to keep everyone happy: - Proposer and the rest of the community gets access to all the information we want, and much faster than if we had to wait for the PDP to complete - No addition of extraneous text to the policy document - No need for micro management of the NCC Does this sound like a reasonable path forward? (this question is meant both for the proposer and the NCC) -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - [1]http://www.redpill-linpro.com [1] http://www.redpill-linpro.com
On 07/11/2012 17:08, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:
Put in Excel and make graph of transfers per month in count of IPs and numbers of transfers? I think this information anyway will be published in RIPE reports. I don't see other benefits.
Cross-posting from from ietf@ietf.org earlier on today:
‘Sunlight Is the Best Disinfectant’
”Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” a well-known quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, refers to the benefits of openness and transparency. I invoke this quote often as executive director of the NYSSCPA, to illustrate that the most credible and respected organizations operate in an atmosphere of avowed openness. We should not only accept criticism and suggestions, we should embrace them. If questions from constituents, the public, or the media make leaders or other responsible parties obfuscate, the questions are usually valid and the answers are not. People who feel uncomfortable under the bright light of scrutiny and criticism often have something to hide.
ref: http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2003/1203/nv/nv2.htm The same principal of openness and clarity have served the RIPE community extremely well since it began, and I see no reason abandon them at the point. Openness will help to ensure a fair and reasonable market. Nick
Dear Nick, Beautiful words. I respect your opinion. I think it is possible to find so great words about privacy. It is important to have balance between privacy and openness. My collegues from Greece told that they have very limited information in whois by privacy reason. In different countries is different opinion about privacy and opennes while we have different mentality. I don't see benefits for community in publishing list of transfer. -- Alexey 07.11.2012 21:24 - Nick Hilliard написал(а): On 07/11/2012 17:08, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:
Put in Excel and make graph of transfers per month in count of IPs and numbers of transfers? I think this information anyway will be published in RIPE reports. I don't see other benefits.
Cross-posting from from ietf@ietf.org earlier on today:
‘Sunlight Is the Best Disinfectant’
”Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” a well-known quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, refers to the benefits of openness and transparency. I invoke this quote often as executive director of the NYSSCPA, to illustrate that the most credible and respected organizations operate in an atmosphere of avowed openness. We should not only accept criticism and suggestions, we should embrace them. If questions from constituents, the public, or the media make leaders or other responsible parties obfuscate, the questions are usually valid and the answers are not. People who feel uncomfortable under the bright light of scrutiny and criticism often have something to hide.
ref: [1]http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2003/1203/nv/nv2.htm The same principal of openness and clarity have served the RIPE community extremely well since it began, and I see no reason abandon them at the point. Openness will help to ensure a fair and reasonable market. Nick [1] http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2003/1203/nv/nv2.htm
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg- bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Tore Anderson
I'd like this information in order to try to confirm my belief that this information is possible to extract from the stats files already available on the FTP.
[Milton L Mueller] If you need this information to confirm your "belief" that this info can be extracted from existing stats file, a reasonable person would conclude that maybe we should make the information available in the format suggested by 2012-05.
Also, if there has been more transfers since the impact analysis was written, I'd like to see their details, as well. If possible, I would prefer to see a daily updated (and easy to parse) text file with all the transfers and their details being made available on the FTP.
[Milton L Mueller] In other words, you want to see everything that 2012-05 would allow anyone to see. A reasonable person would interpret this as support for 2012-05. Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.org
* Milton L Mueller
If you need this information to confirm your "belief" that this info can be extracted from existing stats file, a reasonable person would conclude that maybe we should make the information available in the format suggested by 2012-05.
The format suggested by 2012-05 is fine by me. I would prefer something that is easily parsed by a script, for example something inspired by the delegated-ripencc-extended format: ; network|length|date|sourceLIR|destinationLIR 192.0.2.0|256|20121104|no.anderson|us.mueller
In other words, you want to see everything that 2012-05 would allow anyone to see.
Yes, I do strongly support the notion that the above information should be made available to the community by the NCC.
A reasonable person would interpret this as support for 2012-05.
As noted above, I do indeed support 2012-05's goal of making this information available to the community. However, my earlier objection to the proposal is only relating to how this is accomplished, and whether or not is is really necessary to add even more text to an already excessively long and complicated policy document. The way I see it, if the NCC publishes the information voluntarily, compelling them through policy anyway amounts to redundant micromanagement. The NCC's impact analysis seemed to address this concern, by saying, essentially: «We are willing to publish the details requested, somebody just have to ask us first». So I asked. To my surprise, I got a negative answer. In light of that, it would seem that we do need to compel the NCC to publish the information after all. Hence, I do support 2012-05. That said, if the NCC at a later point in the PDP starts publishing the information voluntarily, I withdraw my support of the proposal and instead object to it, on the grounds that it will be redundant and only serve to further bloat the policy text. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On 04/11/2012 09:03, Tore Anderson wrote:
In light of that, it would seem that we do need to compel the NCC to publish the information after all. Hence, I do support 2012-05.
That said, if the NCC at a later point in the PDP starts publishing the information voluntarily, I withdraw my support of the proposal and instead object to it, on the grounds that it will be redundant and only serve to further bloat the policy text.
If the RIPE NCC feels that it's a matter of their interpretation as to whether they publish this information or not, then there is a clear requirement for having an explicit policy. I support this policy. Nick
* nick@inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) [Mon 05 Nov 2012, 12:32 CET]:
I support this policy.
Seconded. -- Niels. --
Sorry for the slow response, am I an Internet Governance Forum where there is no internet access.
-----Original Message-----
The NCC's impact analysis seemed to address this concern, by saying, essentially: <We are willing to publish the details requested, somebody just have to ask us first>.
So I asked. To my surprise, I got a negative answer.
In light of that, it would seem that we do need to compel the NCC to publish the information after all. Hence, I do support 2012-05.
That said, if the NCC at a later point in the PDP starts publishing the information voluntarily, I withdraw my support of the proposal and instead object to it, on the grounds that it will be redundant and only serve to further bloat the policy text.
[Milton L Mueller] Your point is logical. I just hope the proposal passes before the NCC changes its mind again!
* Milton L Mueller
In light of that, it would seem that we do need to compel the NCC to publish the information after all. Hence, I do support 2012-05.
That said, if the NCC at a later point in the PDP starts publishing the information voluntarily, I withdraw my support of the proposal and instead object to it, on the grounds that it will be redundant and only serve to further bloat the policy text.
[Milton L Mueller] Your point is logical. I just hope the proposal passes before the NCC changes its mind again!
I got a clarification of the NCC's position off-list, which I might as summarise here: They are in willing to publish voluntarily, but since there's now a proposal being discussed, they would like to wait - if it turns out that the proposal falls through ***due to the community consensus being that the information should NOT be made public***, then they would change their position on voluntary publication, which does make sense. So when the WG chairs declares there is consensus for the proposal (or it fails for any other reason than "this info shouldn't be public") we should IMHO ask the NCC to voluntarily publish again, and skip the actual amending of the policy text. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
participants (8)
-
Alex Le Heux -
Ingrid Wijte -
Jan Ingvoldstad -
LeaderTelecom Ltd. -
Milton L Mueller -
Nick Hilliard -
niels=apwg＠bakker.net -
Tore Anderson