August 2000 - lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RE: Fwd: Re: RIPE-160
by Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet 09 Aug '00

09 Aug '00

>Subject: Fwd: Re: RIPE-160 > >I wonder what others feel about this. Such an important prinicipal should >be in the RIPE-173; do others feel the same? > >-Hank A couple of observations... Hank, I guess you do have a particular suggestion? If yes, please put it forward for discussion. Or do you really intend to start a discussion about feelings :-? Some of the stuff in the excerpt as attached below might benefit from a more precise definition: - when we talk about registry business, we're talking Local-IRs and the RIPE _NCC_. - "RIPE" is the term used for referring to the loosely defined european region's "internet constituency". RIPE does not in itself or directly deal with registry transactions, but it does have influence on the definition of address distribution _policiy_. - what is the meaning of "PIR"? > > >It's in RIPE-185: > > > > > ><URL: http://www.ripe.int/ripe/docs/ripe-185.html#toc69> > > > > > >Confidentiality > > > > > > Information collected by a registry in the registration process must > be kept > > > in strict confidence. It is to be used for registration purposes only. > > > It must > > > be transmitted only to higher level registries and/or IANA upon request, > > > but will not be transmitted to any other party unless explicitly > requested > > > in writing by the end user. > > > > Thanks, but that applies more to LIRs than to RIPE. It should be in > > RIPE-160 explicited stated. > >I took it to apply to Registries, whether they be LIRs or RIRs (or the PIR). > >If you feel it should be more clear please feel free to ask for the document >phrasing to be changed on the <lir-wg(a)ripe.net> list. > >Regards, > >-- >leo vegoda >RIPE NCC Best regards, Wilfried. _________________________________:_____________________________________ Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at UniVie Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : RIPE-DB: WW144, PGP keyID 0xF0ACB369 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1

Re: delays
by Hank Nussbacher 09 Aug '00

09 Aug '00

At 11:17 09/08/00 +0100, Willy Calderon wrote: To be a new LIR you send the form to: new-lir(a)ripe.net Once you have a regid, you need to include that in all emails to hostmaster so your email doesn't enter the "slow" queue as yours appears to have. Read the docs. -Hank > > To Willy Calderon: > > > > We have not received any requests from the registry you are > > registered with during 2000. Please give us some more information. > > When and where to did you send your request? Off the list if you want. > > >We sent RIPE(hostmaster(a)ripe.net) an application on July 10 at 16:58. To >expedite this what should we do, send it again?

2 1

Re: delays
by Willy Calderon 09 Aug '00

09 Aug '00

> To Willy Calderon: > > We have not received any requests from the registry you are > registered with during 2000. Please give us some more information. > When and where to did you send your request? Off the list if you want. We sent RIPE(hostmaster(a)ripe.net) an application on July 10 at 16:58. To expedite this what should we do, send it again?

2 1

Fwd: Re: RIPE-160
by Hank Nussbacher 09 Aug '00

09 Aug '00

I wonder what others feel about this. Such an important prinicipal should be in the RIPE-173; do others feel the same? -Hank > > >It's in RIPE-185: > > > > > ><URL: http://www.ripe.int/ripe/docs/ripe-185.html#toc69> > > > > > >Confidentiality > > > > > > Information collected by a registry in the registration process must > be kept > > > in strict confidence. It is to be used for registration purposes only. > > > It must > > > be transmitted only to higher level registries and/or IANA upon request, > > > but will not be transmitted to any other party unless explicitly > requested > > > in writing by the end user. > > > > Thanks, but that applies more to LIRs than to RIPE. It should be in > > RIPE-160 explicited stated. > >I took it to apply to Registries, whether they be LIRs or RIRs (or the PIR). > >If you feel it should be more clear please feel free to ask for the document >phrasing to be changed on the <lir-wg(a)ripe.net> list. > >Regards, > >-- >leo vegoda >RIPE NCC

1 0

RE: delays
by Mally Mclane 09 Aug '00

09 Aug '00

Joao, I cannot recall my ticket number, but I sent in a query about the RIPE email system and never got a reply. I 've just got back from Mexico for 2 weeks, so that was before the 26th. regards, mally mclane =>senior hostmaster =>for Energis Squared, Leeds, UK =>mally(a)energis-squared.com <> www.energis-squared.com =>t: +44(0)1132076624 <> m: +44(0)7787100695 > -----Original Message----- > From: Joao Luis Silva Damas [mailto:joao@ripe.net] > Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 5:00 PM > To: Willy Calderon; lir-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: delays > > > Hello, > > I don't currently see any unopened tickets older than 26th of July. > > Could you provide a ticket number so that we can investigate the > matter further? > > Joao Damas > Head of External Services > RIPE NCC > > At 16:32 +0100 8/8/00, Willy Calderon wrote: > >Has anyone else noticed any delays with RIPE's working wait queue? > >Anything out of the ordinary, that is. I've sent > hostmaster(a)ripe.net a > >query on 10th July and have yet to get an initial response from them > >despite their claims that response times was up to two weeks. > > > >I've followed up on this initial query, but to no avail. > > > >---- > >Willy Calderon > >Provisioning Group > >LighthouseServers > >+44(0)117 908 2463 >

2 1

delays
by Willy Calderon 08 Aug '00

08 Aug '00

Has anyone else noticed any delays with RIPE's working wait queue? Anything out of the ordinary, that is. I've sent hostmaster(a)ripe.net a query on 10th July and have yet to get an initial response from them despite their claims that response times was up to two weeks. I've followed up on this initial query, but to no avail. ---- Willy Calderon Provisioning Group LighthouseServers +44(0)117 908 2463

3 2

Call for Nominations - ASO Address Council
by RIPE NCC Staff 07 Aug '00

07 Aug '00

Call for Nominations for Representatives to the ASO Address Council - RIPE NCC Region Dear colleagues, This is a call for nominations of individuals from the RIPE NCC region to serve on the ASO Address Council. During November 2000, one RIPE NCC Region Address Council seat will become vacant and will be filled for the next three years by an individual nominated through this open call. This document describes the functions of the ASO and the Address Council, as well as the nomination and selection processes. If you are interested in nominating an individual, or if you are interested in being nominated as a member of the Address Council, please read this document carefully. 1. The Address Supporting Organisation - -------------------------------------- The ASO was formed in August 1999 as a consensus-based advisory body within the ICANN framework, through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed by the current Regional Internet Registries and ICANN. The ICANN Bylaws (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-A) assign to the ASO the responsibility for the development of global policies relating to the distribution and registration of Internet address space, inter-domain routing identifiers and that part of the DNS name space that is used to name these addresses and identifiers. More information about the ASO is available at: http://www.aso.icann.org 2. The Address Council - ---------------------- The ASO Address Council co-ordinates the process of policy development in areas within the responsibility of the ASO, according to procedures defined within the MoU and by the Address Council itself. Specifically, these include the hosting of an annual open General Assembly meeting (the first of which was held in Budapest in May 2000) and attending regular meetings either by teleconference or face-to-face, at which policy issues and submissions may be considered. The other major responsibility of the Address Council is the appointment of individuals to fill ASO seats on the ICANN Board of Directors, according to procedures defined within the MoU. More information on the Address Council is available at: http://www.aso.icann.org/ac/ 3. The Role of Members of the Address Council - --------------------------------------------- Each member of the Address Council is expected to serve for a period of 3 years. The terms of appointment of the current initial AC members were staggered terms of 1, 2 and 3 years to allow one third of the Address Council to be replaced in each subsequent year. No member of the Address Council is entitled to any compensation from the ASO. No member of the Address Council can be indemnified by the ASO, nor can the ASO obtain insurance coverage relating to the liability of the actions of members of the Address Council. AC members do not represent any RIR, nor do they act as representatives of any other body. They are appointed in their individual capacity, and their membership cannot be proxied by any other individual or organisation. 4. Address Council Nominations Process - -------------------------------------- The term of Sabine Jaume who has served as an initial AC member for the past year has expired. One individual from the RIPE NCC Region will be selected to serve on the Address Council for a term of three years. The selection will be made through an open election process, from the set of individuals who have been nominated within this process. Any individual may be nominated, with the exception of any staff member of any Regional Internet Registry. Self-nominations are permitted. Nominations should be sent by email to <nominations(a)ripe.net>, by midnight CET on 30 September 2000. The information included with the nomination is to be in English, and should include: Name of Nominee: Country of residence: Organisation: Email Address: Postal Address: Biographical information: Motivation for nomination: Name of nominating individual: Organisation: Email Address: All nominees will be contacted via email to confirm their willingness to serve on the Address Council. If a nominee cannot be contacted via email, or does not respond, then their nomination will not be confirmed and they will not be eligible for election to the Address Council. All confirmed nominations will be listed on the RIPE NCC web site after they are confirmed. All nominees will have the opportunity to submit a written statement in support of their nomination for publication on the web site. In addition, others may express support for nominated individuals simply by completing and submitting the nomination form provided above. 5. Address Council Selection Process - ------------------------------------ The process for selection of the nominee to serve on the Address Council will involve an open election. Due to the 90 day lead time needed for a call for nominations prior to a RIPE NCC region policy meeting, the selection process will not be held at the RIPE 37 meeting, 12-15 September 2000, in Amsterdam. Two selection processes have been proposed. The first follows the voting process outlined in the MoU. The selection procedure would take place at the RIPE 38 meeting in January 2001 in Amsterdam. The second process currently being discussed involves implementing an electronic voting procedure as it would allow for more participation in the selection process and could bring the process forward. This procedure would be discussed prior to the RIPE 37 meeting and announced in the LIR-WG meeting. Hans Petter Holen, LIR-WG Chair, will initiate discussions about this procedure on the lir-wg mailing list. Important Dates: 30 September 2000 - deadline for Address Council nominations Regards, Hans Petter Holen

1 0

R: X-NCC RegID: UK.BTENT - Enterprise Registry Address Assignment Po licy
by Alessandro.Pelosi＠swisscom-italy.com 01 Aug '00

01 Aug '00

Dear Sirs, According to me It is better to assign to any company asking a space in your server farm a little pool of addresses, this because it happend that spam complaints or such stuff arrived to the hostmaster of the server farm instead to the owner of the server. On second hand, if we behave like this, there's always the possibility to know who is the user of these addresses consulting the RIPE database. Alessandro Pelosi Swisscom Spa -----Messaggio originale----- Da: adrian.pauling(a)bt.com [mailto:adrian.pauling@bt.com] Inviato: martedì 1 agosto 2000 11.51 A: hostmaster(a)ripe.net; lir-wg(a)ripe.net Cc: kevin.bates(a)bt.com; mark.glover(a)bt.com Oggetto: X-NCC RegID: UK.BTENT - Enterprise Registry Address Assignment Po licy Dear Hostmasters / LIRwg, I seek clarification on policy with respect to Enterprise Registry assignments, and have two fundamental areas for debate. Area 1: Enterprise vs. ISP LIR Assignment for non-ISP LIR Revenue Generation As an Enterprise Registry, should we be assigning IP addresses to Web Server Farms, which are part of the owning Corporate but not part of the ISP operation (ISP LIR, not the associated Enterprise LIR) ? At the IP level, web hosting server farm group are not revenue generating for the ISP operation, and they do not resell IP services as they only host web pages. They are revenue generating for the Corporate though. I believe they're paying commercial public rates to the ISP operation for their Internet connection. Initially the ISP LIR rejected an assignment request as the web hosting operation seems to be from the Corporate. Hence, they're requesting an assignment from the Enterprise LIR. The reverseDNS for the Enterprise is operated independently of the ISP operation. Should an Enterprise Registry assign the addresses? Area 2: Enterprise vs. ISP LIR Assignments for Corporate Pilots and Trials As the Enterprise LIR, we are often asked to assign addresses for pilots & trials of new technologies from teams within the Corporate Group. Such pilots and trials often become commercial revenue generating upon successful completion. At this stage the Enterprise address space ends up on a commercial service. Should the commercial service re-address upon successful completion ( causing operational costs and product launch difficulties ) using assignments from the ISP LIR? Do we transfer IP assignments from Enterprise LIR to ISP LIR registries? Regards, Adrian F Pauling :-)NEL2C Internet Protocol Manager acd Information Systems Engineering AFP1-RIPE / AFP-ARIN / AFP25-InterNIC * adrian.pauling(a)bt.com * +44 19 2685 1992 / +44 78 0290 4877 British Telecommunications plc Registered Office 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Registered in England no 1800000

1 0

X-NCC RegID: UK.BTENT - Enterprise Registry Address Assignment Po licy
by adrian.pauling＠bt.com 01 Aug '00

01 Aug '00

Dear Hostmasters / LIRwg, I seek clarification on policy with respect to Enterprise Registry assignments, and have two fundamental areas for debate. Area 1: Enterprise vs. ISP LIR Assignment for non-ISP LIR Revenue Generation As an Enterprise Registry, should we be assigning IP addresses to Web Server Farms, which are part of the owning Corporate but not part of the ISP operation (ISP LIR, not the associated Enterprise LIR) ? At the IP level, web hosting server farm group are not revenue generating for the ISP operation, and they do not resell IP services as they only host web pages. They are revenue generating for the Corporate though. I believe they're paying commercial public rates to the ISP operation for their Internet connection. Initially the ISP LIR rejected an assignment request as the web hosting operation seems to be from the Corporate. Hence, they're requesting an assignment from the Enterprise LIR. The reverseDNS for the Enterprise is operated independently of the ISP operation. Should an Enterprise Registry assign the addresses? Area 2: Enterprise vs. ISP LIR Assignments for Corporate Pilots and Trials As the Enterprise LIR, we are often asked to assign addresses for pilots & trials of new technologies from teams within the Corporate Group. Such pilots and trials often become commercial revenue generating upon successful completion. At this stage the Enterprise address space ends up on a commercial service. Should the commercial service re-address upon successful completion ( causing operational costs and product launch difficulties ) using assignments from the ISP LIR? Do we transfer IP assignments from Enterprise LIR to ISP LIR registries? Regards, Adrian F Pauling :-)NEL2C Internet Protocol Manager acd Information Systems Engineering AFP1-RIPE / AFP-ARIN / AFP25-InterNIC * adrian.pauling(a)bt.com * +44 19 2685 1992 / +44 78 0290 4877 British Telecommunications plc Registered Office 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ Registered in England no 1800000

1 0