September 2002 - lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

ICANN Reform
by Hans Petter Holen 10 Oct '02

10 Oct '02

Dear lir-wg, On the topic if the ICANN reform http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/blueprint-20jun02.htm With reference to the RIR joint statement of June 20th http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/rir-icann-statement-20020620.html and the response from the ICANN reform committee: http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/update-16sep02.htm and the discussion at the RIPE meeting I would like to ask the lir-wg members to study theese statements and actively participate in the ICANN reform process. Either by: 1) Discussion on this list, and with clear advice to your AC members on how you wish to advice us to act. or 2) submitting your oppinion directly to the ERC http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/blueprint-20jun02.htm Best Regards, Hans Petter Holen lir-wg chair

5 10

Draft agenda
by Hans Petter Holen 24 Sep '02

24 Sep '02

Dear lir-wg, Thanks to help from Leo we now have the following draft agenda. Please send me suggestions and updaes as nedded to prepare a relevant agenda for our meeting: The LIR Working Group session will be held on Wednesday 11 September 2002 from 09.00 - 12.30. Draft Agenda for RIPE 43 (version 0.1) 09:00 - 12:30 Wednesday, 11 September 2002 Chair: Hans Petter Holen Co-chair: Denesh Bhabuta A. Admin: Scribe Participant List, Charter, Mailing lists B. Agenda bashing C. RIPE 42 minutes and actions D. Report from the RIPE NCC Registration Services - Presentation by leo vegoda E. Report from the Address Council - Presentation F. IPv4 Assignment and Allocation Policy F.1 "Official Sub-Allocations" Proposal by Gert Doering G. Presentation of AC candiates X. Any other business Y. Summary of actions arising from this meeting Z. Open microphone ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- For current issues, please turn to the LIR Working Group mailing list archives at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/index.html More information about this working group is located at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/index.html Best regards, --- Hans Petter Holen, Technical Manager, Tiscali, Norway, phone: +47 24 11 26 44 mobile: +47 99 21 76 70 fax:+47 24 11 24 11

2 2

Draft minutes from lir-wg at RIPE 41
by Hans Petter Holen 10 Sep '02

10 Sep '02

Dear WG, The RIPE NCC have just finished the draft minutes and published them on the RIPE web site under: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/r41-minutes.html RIPE Meeting: 41 Working Group: LIR Status: 1st Draft Revision Number: 1 Please mail comments/suggestions on: content to the Chair of the working group. format to webmaster(a)ripe.net. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Draft Minutes of the LIR Working Group session of the RIPE 41 Meeting 14-18 January 2002, at the Krasnapolsky Hotel, Amsterdam, Netherlands. ----------------------------------- Chair: James Aldridge Vice-Chair: Denesh Bhabuta Scribe: Jeannette Decades ----------------------------------- Agenda: A. Admin - scribe, participant list, charter, mailing-lists B. Agenda bashing C. RIPE 39+40 (minutes & actions) D. Report from the RIPE NCC Hostmasters E. RIPE 185 ("European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures") F. Change of policy for Portable address space G. RFC 2050 ("European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures") revision H. Report from The Address Council Y. Any Other Business Z. Open Microphone. Denesh Bhabuta (DB): Hans Petter Holen couldn't make it. So the meeting will have to do with James Aldridge and myself, Denesh Bhabuta. We want to set a ground rule: One of the complaints from the past was that the LIR WG has been fed with too many discussions. Discussions are supposed to happen on the mailing lists and policy decisions are to be made at the meeting. James Aldridge (JA): The agenda was sent out yesterday to the mailing list. ======================== A: Scribe. ======================== DB: Could we have a non-RIPE staff scribe please? No reactions. A RIPE staff member is scribe. ======================== B: Agenda bashing ======================== JA: Are there any additional items for the agenda? No reactions. ======================== C: RIPE 39 and RIPE 40 minutes and actions. ======================== JA: The minutes are on the website since November we think. Actions as it appears on the website, few of them are very old actions from RIPE 35, 36 and 38. Most of these had something happened since the last RIPE meeting. A lot of it is ongoing work. The 38.5 LIR-Allocated, my original suggestion, is now LIR-Partitioned and some email is sent out this week. It is now in the test database and will go live real soon now. Working group chair roles is working fine since Hans Petter Holen is not here and I am. Policy action undivided address space action on the working group to participate on the RFC 2050 is in progress. ======================= D: Report from the RIPE NCC Hostmasters ======================== Presentation of Sabrina Waschke can be found at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-41/presentations/lir-rsreport /index.html Some additional comments from Sabrina on the slides: RS staffing. We have now 5 teams. Three new hostmasters are starting in January. At this point we hope to be fully staffed and can cope with the workload. And as you can see, you have probably seen it before, we also work on future growth. (Sabrina shows her big belly). Number of requests in hostmaster(a)ripe.net. In 2000, we see a peak but now the graph shows a steady growth. We introduced last year the two-day-turnaround time for ongoing tickets. That meant that when your request was picked up out of the wait queue, a hostmaster dealt with it, you replied, you had to wait for 48 hours before you got a response from us again. That means that correctly filled out requests get a faster approval. The special lir-help(a)ripe.net mailbox is not holding up normal requests anymore. We still apply the 'approve but educate' approach. Even not perfect requests got approved and we gave tips and information for improvements to get a faster approval next time. Wait queue. The last 6 months the wait queue is low. The last 2 months it is a bit higher, due to Dutch weather (sickness) and Christmas holidays. Total LIRs per region. The growth is slowing down. We don't expect too many new LIRs. IPv4 Allocation distribution. LIRs that are working all over Europe have the country code EU. Policy development. A message was sent out to the LIR WG concerning the /20 criteria. At RIPE 40 the decision about the Assignment Window (AW) for infrastructure for LIRs was decided upon and it was introduced in December 2001. Already 250 objects have been created in the database with the INFRA-AW extension. Not all of them are valid. Some LIRs have tried to use this to clean up the database. RS services are working on a document that tries to cover everything concerning mergers, take-overs and closures of LIRs. IPv6. The assignments for Exchange Points have been introduced in August 2001. E: RIPE 185 ("European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures") ======================== Nurani Nimpuno (NN): We encourage everyone to look at the document and to give comments. We're speaking about the new policy draft document for IPv4 policies. The document has been out on the web for 5 months and there was very little activity. The couple of comments that have been made have been published on the LIR WG mailing list. JA: I'm not sure how much more we can do. There hasn't been very much discussion on the mailing list about this. My opinion is this, more profitable work is done on the mailing list. Then we can come to the RIPE meetings for final decisions, rather than having long drawn-out arguments and conversations here. But are there any brief comments from anyone here? Because we're actually ahead of schedule and I'm trying to think of anything to fit in a bit of time. I encourage everyone to join the mailing list and to participate in the revision process. The email address is ripe-185bis(a)ripe.net. ======================== F: Change of policy for Portable address space ======================== JA: The question is if people are happy with the new policy? No reaction. DB: Are people aware of the policy change? It's about the requirements of a /22 immediate or the previously use of a /22 to become a new LIR. This was voted on at the last RIPE meeting. Any thoughts? Are people finding it difficult with their customers who want to be mainly multi-homed? Comments? No? We will continue this discussion on the mailing list. ======================== G: RFC 2050 ("European Internet Registry Policies and Procedures") revision ======================== JA: The agenda on the web was wrong about this one. This should be the RFC 2050, the global Internet Registries guidelines, which is being revised and prolong sides the European policy. Again joining the mailing list for participation and discussion is appreciated. Are there any comments for now? Mark Mcfadden (mcf(a)uwm.edu): I'll give a brief update. There is a mailing list available through ARIN for the global RFC 2050 discussion. Part of that working group, there are also some milestones. We're a little bit behind on those because of some things that happened at the end of last year. But we can start see there again is some movement forward. So I encourage anyone who is interested in the discussion of the revision of RFC 2050 to make sure that you're part of that mailing list. Mailing list address: rfc2050-WG(a)arin.net JA: Any questions, comments, anything? Comment from ?: I think that there are more hostmasters here are than LIRs. ======================== H: Report from The Address Council ======================== Barbara Roseman gave a report from the Address Council. Slides can be found at: ======================== Y: Any Other Business ======================== UUNET: There has been a discussion on the mailing list about PI - multihomed issues. The question raised if multi-homed is always needed or not. We have customers that need multi-homing. But not all providers will route small address blocks. JA: I don't know if there's anything that the LIR WG can do to force providers to route any particular address space. I would be inclined, rather than a policy change our of LIRs, have the Routing WG work on this issue and come up with a 'best practice or something'. DB: We can talkabout 'best practice' but there are commercial realities behind this as well. A lot of ISPs have customer requirements to fulfill. You're not the only person who has spoken about this issue with us and it has mainly come up since the last policy change. This was about the minimum requirement of a /22 before we can get address space. Are there any suggestions? UUNET: As far as I can see, the company that I work for, which is UUNET, is thinking about(at least the hostmaster is, which I am not) having a policy where you accept other provider's PA space instead of trying to go the PI route. This is current thinking, this is no decision, but the problem is we don't have a consistent policy across our AS and we'd like to implement one. Before we implement it we'd like to have consistent policy within RIPE. The problem is that whenever we get the discussion, everybody starts jumping and shouting saying: "Multi-homing". Then the discussion dies because multi-homing is the issue. But before we solve that problem we would like to have something implemented that is workable right now instead of waiting until we solve the mult-homing discussion, which seems to be without a logical solution. DB: My suggestion is that we take this up with the Routing WG as well and maybe we can make this into an action item from this meeting. UUNET: I didn't raise it in the Routing WG yesterday, thinking that was more appropriate to the LIR WG. I guess there were some initiatives in the community, but they all died. So I wonder if there's anybody else that feels like this, something we need to resolve rather sooner than later. DB: Any other comments? No reaction. UUNET: I guess there's too much RIPE NCC people here as previously discussed. DB: We'll set it as an action point. JA: This is the first new action point from this RIPE meeting. Any other questions, comments? I think this is about it for this morning. Please participate on the mailing lists. It does make it so much easier if there's been discussion before RIPE meetings. We can then reach final decisions at these WG-meetings.

2 1

New Document available: RIPE-253
by RIPE NCC Document Announcement Service 05 Sep '02

05 Sep '02

New/Revised RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A revised/new document is available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-253 Title: RIPE Database User Manual: Getting Started Author: Andrei Robachevsky, Shane Kerr, Vesna Manojlovic Samantha Dickinson Date: 9 September 2002 Format: PS=78771 TXT= Available soon Obsoletes: Obsoleted by: Updates: Updated by: Short content description ------------------------- This document is intended for users who have no previous experience with the RIPE Database. It is a hands-on tutorial that walks the reader through the basic concepts and techniques that are needed to use the RIPE Database using example and exercises. This document is not intended to be a complete reference. Full information on the RIPE Database may be found in the RIPE Database Reference Manual at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/databaseref-manual.html Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- You can access the RIPE documents in HTML format via WWW. the "RIPE Database User Manual: Getting Started" is available at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/docs/db-start.html The RIPE document store is also available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-253.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-253.txt plain text version Please note that the .txt version will be available as soon as possible. Kind Regards, Jeroen Bet RIPE NCC Webmaster

1 0

Re: [lir-wg] Remove all games from your laptop before going tothe RIPE meeting
by Denis Walker 05 Sep '02

05 Sep '02

I know it is a strange law, but everyone is looking at the negatives. There are also some positives to this law. Just think what an opportunity this is for Greek kids to re-invent long lost human skills like social interaction, face to face conversation, sport, exercising the whole body rather than just the fingers. Maybe even people will start to smile at each other on a train or bus or talk to each other in a queue instead of everyone sitting/standing there with heads down starring at their mobile phones like a bunch of zombies. It could be a new model for mankind :) cheers denis (who hates computer games anyway) Rudolf van der Berg <r.vanderberg(a)ndix.net> writes: * --=====================_169121053==_.ALT * Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed * * At 09:25 5-9-2002, Chris Hallam wrote: * * >How are they defining the term, 'Game'? Surely it won't be long before * >they have to outlaw Internet browsing due to the various applets the pop * >up here and there. How did that law get passed, and what is it supposed * >to achieve? * > * >Chris * * To find the full text of the law, go here: http://www.netcafe.gr/files/law.t * xt * * Article 1d describes it in the broadest terms possible: (quote) d. * Electronic games are those, that depend on both electrical-electronic * mechanisms and software. (end quote) * * So when arriving in Greece, they could take away your cell-phone, cause it * can play Tic Tac Toe, Snake or Space Invaders. :-) On the other hand... * don't be too frightened. The law was passed to battle illegal gambling, * certainly after a member of parliament was caught red-handed playing video * poker. For more information you could read here, especially the third * letter. : * * http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5208 * * greetings, * * Rudolf * * --=====================_169121053==_.ALT * Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" * * <html> * At 09:25 5-9-2002, Chris Hallam wrote: * <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>How are they defining * the term, 'Game'?  Surely it won't be long before they have to * outlaw Internet browsing due to the various applets the pop up here and * there.  How did that law get passed, and what is it supposed to * achieve? * * Chris </blockquote> * To find the full text of the law, go here: * <a href="http://www.netcafe.gr/files/law.txt" eudora="autourl">http://www.ne * tcafe.gr/files/law.txt</a> * Article 1d describes it in the broadest terms possible: (quote) d. * Electronic games are those, that depend on both electrical-electronic * mechanisms and software. (end quote) * So when arriving in Greece, they could take away your cell-phone, cause * it can play Tic Tac Toe, Snake or Space Invaders. :-) On the other * hand... don't be too frightened. The law was passed to battle illegal * gambling, certainly after a member of parliament was caught red-handed * playing video poker. For more information you could read here, especially * the third letter. : * <a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5208" eudora="autourl">http://w * ww.theinquirer.net/?article=5208</a> * greetings, * Rudolf * </html> * * --=====================_169121053==_.ALT-- *

4 3

Action from RIPE 42: Sub-Allocations revisited
by Gert Doering 05 Sep '02

05 Sep '02

Hi, and once again, the suballocation topic. On RIPE42 in Amsterdam, the feedback was pretty much non-existant, so nothing has been decided on this proposal. I still think it's useful. Not for all LIRs, but for the larger ones that have a multi-level reseller hierarchy, or maybe a multi-national internal hierarchy (Stephen and the MIR thing). In the last months, I've heard a few comments from different sides that "hmm, yes, this could be exactly what we need". Also, APNIC is working on a similar proposal for their community. Please read the following thoughts, and form an opinition. (It's a bit repetitive, as a couple of questions have come up again that are already answered in the draft). If you're in favour of it, please voice it. If you don't think it's useful, but don't see any harm coming from it, please voice that as well (please don't just write "this is crap!" unless you're convinced that nobody else can benefit from it either, and it will do more harm than good). If you *do* think it's complete crap and will destroy the whole RIPE structure, please by all means voice that as well :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster ------------- snip ------------- Motivation: - Some LIRs have internal hierarchies, like "resellers that have their own end customers". - For aggregation reasons internal to the LIR network, LIRs "allocate" address space to their resellers ("hierarchical sub-LIRs"), who then "assign" addresse from that to their customers. Usually the LIR has to approve all end-user requests, but the sub-LIR is doing the actual assignment from the "allocated" space. - The current policy doesn't explicitely permit this, but acknowledges to some extent that it is done. - When the LIR goes to the RIR to get another allocation, the 80% rule does not take into account the fact that some of the "not assigned" space may be in fact "sub-allocated" to a "sub-LIR", thus it may be very hard to reach 80% (and will lead to internal fragmentation). (This is what Wilfried calls "reservation") - The sub-allocations are not documented, so an outsider cannot see who might be the best contact (the reseller!) if one of the end customers misbehaves (this part could be solved with "LIR-PARTITIONED"). Proposal: - permit LIRs to sub-allocate the address allocation they receive from a RIR to "downstream parties", from now on called sub-LIRs - the Sub-Allocations are documented as an inetnum: object with "status: SUB-ALLOCATED PA" in the RIPE database. I do not like "LIR-PARTITIONED", because it isn't partitioned ("equal parts"), and also because it doesn't go far enough. - All assignments from the Sub-Allocation are done by the Sub-LIR. The Sub-LIR is responsible to the LIR for following policies and procedures. The LIR is responsible to the RIR for making sure that the Sub-LIR follows the procedures. This is no big difference from what is being *done* now, it's just "officially documented". - When the LIR has to apply for an additional allocation, the Sub-Allocation are counted for the "80% utilization rule". So, to show an extreme example, a LIR that has sub-allocated 90% to its resellers, and they have only assigned a total of 30% of the total allocation yet, the LIR *would be* entitled to get a new allocation (under the current policy, it is not). In extreme cases, it might be necessary to show lots of good documentation to the RIR as for "why did you allocate so much". Points of Concern: - "They will just waste address space". Yes, it will waste some space, due to better aggregation. It is not expected that this will waste space due to "sloppyness" in following the policies and procedures - each hierarchy level will be fully responsible for making sure that the next-lower level will understand the rules and follow them. It is similar to what IANA and the RIRs do. The RIRs try to hand out address space in a responsible way (which does not always succeeed, which is why changes to the procedures are made, like /19 -> /20 for the initial allocation), and in this proposal, the LIRs have to hand out space to the sub-LIRs in a responsible way. If the RIRs mess up, they have a problem with IANA, if the LIRs mess up, they have a problem with their RIR. - "How big shall the sub-allocation be"? The exact numbers for the default case would have to be defined. Again, this is similar to the RIR->LIR case. A LIR by default gets a /20, but might get a bigger space in case it produces a good forecast that shows a reasonable need for a bigger space. I propose to give a Sub-LIR a /24 to start with, except in cases that they show evidence for needing more. Rationale: it's not too much, and you can delegate DNS on /24 boundaries without ugly tricks. When the Sub-Allocation is used up (= 80% of the space in there is ASSIGNED), the Sub-LIR can ask for more. If a customer asks for more space than the Sub-LIR has left, the Sub-Allocation can also be increased / a new Sub-Allocation be made. As a starting point for the discussion, I propose: - minimum size of a Sub-Allocation: /24 (because that's what's needed to be able to properly delegate the reverse DNS zone) - maximum size of a Sub-Allocation: 4x AW per year and sub-LIR (the number "4" here is of course open for discussion) - if a bigger size is required, go through NCC hostmasters alternatively one could introduce a new "Sub-Allocation-AW", but that's even more bureaucracy. - "What's the size of networks a Sub-LIR can assign to their customers"? It can not go over the AW of the LIR. This part is fixed due to the RIR/LIR relation. As for the rest, I propose that this should be a matter between the LIR and the Sub-LIR. They have a contract, and it's the LIRs job to make sure that the Sub-LIR follows the official policies and procedures, maybe introducing their own Sub-AW per Sub-LIR etc. Thoughts and Considerations from the RIPE NCC (Leo Vegoda): 1. How should the RIPE NCC act when a further allocation is requested if the existing allocation is not at "about 80%" usage (when used means valid assignments) - but "about 80%" is used in assignments and sub-allocations? Answer: see above in the "Motivation" block. The idea is that Sub-Allocations are considered "usage", so if (for example) 40% is ASSIGNED and another 40% is SUB-ALLOCATED, 80% usage is achieved. What percentage of the SUB-ALLOCATED space is actually ASSIGNED is not considered. So the answer is "if all other things are fine, a new allocation should be made". It is envisioned that the NCC hostmasters are going to ask nasty questions if the percentage of SUB-ALLOCATED is "overly" high and the percentage of end-user assignments overall is "overly" low (exact values to be defined). 2. If the RIPE NCC should count a "sub-allocation" as used then should it take account of the degree of assignment in the sub-allocations? If so, what degree should be assigned from them? Answer: I think that the number of end-user assignments made inside sub-allocations should not be a hard criterium (like the 80% rule). I do think that very low ratios should lead to nasty questions. I do also think that this should be compared to the IANA/RIR level - if a RIR comes back to IANA because all /8s have been "used up" (by allocating to LIRs), IANA doesn't consider the actual usage ratio *inside* the allocations, as long as the RIR has been following its rules for "under which circumstances is it permitted to make an allocation, and which size is OK". 3. Should there be a maximum size an LIR can sub-allocate? If so, what size? (I know you've previously proposed a /24 as a default or minimum size). Answer: see above (yes, but the exact number has to be decided upon). 4. Should holders of a sub-allocation be allowed to sub-allocate, too? This is allowed in IPv6. Should IPv4 be different? Answer: I can see arguments for both sides - sub-sub-allocations might not really make sense in IPv4 (not enough bits to do so much hierarchy), but then, it might make sense in some networks. I'd leave this one to the community for a decision. 5. LIRs are contractually obliged to follow the RIPE community's policies. Is it possible to enforce any requirement for a holder of a sub-allocation to follow those policies, too? Answer: The LIR has signed that it will obey all policies. So it would be part of those to enforce the RIPE rules onto the Sub-LIR as well (by an appropriate contract). This would have to be made very explicit in the "sub-allocation policy document". 6. If an LIR makes a sub-allocation this is presumably becasue it trusts the re-seller to administer the space responsibly and wants to delegate responsibility for the assignments. This implies that the LIR would place the re-seller's mnt-lower on the sub- allocation allowing the re-seller to assign without returning to the LIR. However, this would remove control over that portion of address space from the LIR. Would this policy require the reclaim attribute to be implemented in the Database? Answer: this is something to be worked out with the database WG, but to avoid trouble with the RIPE DB entries when a Sub-LIR "goes away" without cleaning up their entries, this is considered useful. 7. Database rules would have to be made as for what kind of "nesting" is permitted (SUB-ALLOCATED PA is only permitted inside another SUB-ALLOCATED or ALLOCATED PA, not inside "* PI", and so on). Answer: yes, of course. Other Comments (various sources) * this will generate a radical new structure (two-level RIR/LIR to multi-level) Answer: yes, this is the intention. * Considering the address wastage - it might not actually waste that much space, if it means some "Sub-LIRs" will not become full-sized LIRs (with a /20 each) but are happy with a /22 Sub-Allocation. So maybe it will even reduce the new-LIR rush in the progress. * Would this mean that the existing AWs would have to be reviewed (to make sure that these LIRs do not mis-use their AW to create lots of useless Sub-Allocations)? Answer: I don't think so. Maybe one need to do some kind of "small audit" on sub-allocated ranges after a few month, to get experience with this. -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 46611 (45583) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster(a)Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299

4 4

RE: [lir-wg] Remove all games from your laptop before going tothe RIPE meeting
by Rudolf van der Berg 05 Sep '02

05 Sep '02

At 09:25 5-9-2002, Chris Hallam wrote: >How are they defining the term, 'Game'? Surely it won't be long before >they have to outlaw Internet browsing due to the various applets the pop >up here and there. How did that law get passed, and what is it supposed >to achieve? > >Chris To find the full text of the law, go here: http://www.netcafe.gr/files/law.txt Article 1d describes it in the broadest terms possible: (quote) d. Electronic games are those, that depend on both electrical-electronic mechanisms and software. (end quote) So when arriving in Greece, they could take away your cell-phone, cause it can play Tic Tac Toe, Snake or Space Invaders. :-) On the other hand... don't be too frightened. The law was passed to battle illegal gambling, certainly after a member of parliament was caught red-handed playing video poker. For more information you could read here, especially the third letter. : http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5208 greetings, Rudolf

1 0

Remove all games from your laptop before going to the RIPE meetin g
by D'HERTOG Pieterjan 05 Sep '02

05 Sep '02

By Matt Loney and Rupert Goodwins ZDNet (UK) September 3, 2002, 3:18 PM PT URL: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-956357.html In Greece, playing a shoot-'em-up video game could land you in jail. The Greek government has banned all electronic games across the country, including those that run on home computers, on Game Boy-style portable consoles, and on mobile phones. Thousands of tourists in Greece are unknowingly facing heavy fines or long terms in prison for owning mobile phones or portable video games. Greek Law Number 3037, enacted at the end of July, explicitly forbids electronic games with "electronic mechanisms and software" from public and private places, and people have already been fined tens of thousands of dollars for playing or owning games. The law applies equally to visitors from abroad: "If you know these things are banned, you should not bring them in," said a commercial attaché at the Greek Embassy in London, who declined to give her name. Internet cafes will be allowed to continue to operate, providing no games-playing takes place. If a customer is found to be running any sort of game, including online chess, the cafe owner will be fined and the place closed. The Greek government introduced the law in an attempt to prevent illegal gambling. According to a report in the Greek newspaper Kathimerini, Greek police will be responsible for catching offenders, who will face fines of 5,000 to 75,000 euros (about $4,980 to $74,650) and imprisonment of one to 12 months. "The blanket ban was decided in February after the government admitted it was incapable of distinguishing innocuous video games from illegal gambling machines," the report said. The Greek gaming community has reacted with a mixture of shock, disbelief and anger. One Web site, www.gameland.gr, has started a news service about the ban and opened a petition to protest it. In addition, it is posting English translations of the law and messages of support from around the world. A test case is to come before the Greek courts next week, and the Greek gaming community is already planning protests in the event that the defendant is convicted. "We are trying to organize a protest against this law," said Petros Tipis of Thessaloniki-based gaming company Reload Entertainment, which has had to cancel a gaming tournament that was to be held this week. If the prosecution of the defendant next week is successful, said Tipis, the Greek gaming industry will take the case to the European Court. In the meantime, Tipis told ZDNet UK, a lot of people in Greece are very worried about the new law. "They are taking it very seriously," he said. "It even affects the games that come with Windows. This law isn't the right one," he added. "It is unfair. It was introduced too quickly." Reload's tournament, which was to be held Fridah, was a qualifier for the CPL Oslo 2002 gaming tournament. "Now we are trying not to lose the two slots we were given from CPL for the tournament," Tipis said. "This was the first time for a qualifier (for this tournament) in Greece." ZDNet UK's Rupert Goodwins and Matt Loney reported from London. --- Pieterjan d'Hertog, Senior Network Engineer Belgacom Skynet NV/SA, 2 Rue Carli, B-1140 Brussels Phone +3227061311 Fax +3227061150 http://www.skynet.be PGP fingerprint: D9AB CD6A 2A78 73CC 68BF 0AFA 8FB3 5821 E4BB 9D2E

5 5

RE: [lir-wg] Remove all games from your laptop before going tothe RIPE meeting
by Chris Hallam 05 Sep '02

05 Sep '02

How are they defining the term, 'Game'? Surely it won't be long before they have to outlaw Internet browsing due to the various applets the pop up here and there. How did that law get passed, and what is it supposed to achieve? Chris -----Original Message----- From: Arnd Vehling [mailto:av@nethead.de] Sent: 05 September 2002 16:09 To: Daniel Karrenberg Cc: John Crain; 'D'HERTOG Pieterjan'; lir-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [lir-wg] Remove all games from your laptop before going tothe RIPE meeting Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > At 08:59 AM 9/5/2002, John Crain wrote: > >So have they banned the Microsoft operating system that comes with card > >games etc. as standard:) > > Yes. They are checking at the borders on only admit laptops with *ix and *BSD > operating systems. Are those the OS's that come with the game "nethack"? -- NetHead Network Design and Security Arnd Vehling av(a)nethead.De Gummersbacherstr. 27 Phone: +49 221 8809210 50679 Köln Fax : +49 221 8809212 ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. **********************************************************************

1 0

Action from RIPE 42: Sub-Allocations revisited
by Stephen Burley 02 Sep '02

02 Sep '02

My first comment - BTW this is a well outlined. - All assignments from the Sub-Allocation are done by the Sub-LIR. The Sub-LIR is responsible to the LIR for following policies and procedures. The LIR is responsible to the RIR for making sure that the Sub-LIR follows the procedures. This is no big difference from what is being *done* now, it's just "officially documented". I feel the Sub-LIR should still be responsible to RIPE for approvals etc. Stephen Burley WorldCom EMEA Hostmaster SB855-RIPE

3 3