- lir-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RE: RIPE NCC Issues
by Gareth Staff 17 Apr '00

17 Apr '00

Please see inline for comments. > -----Original Message----- > From: michael.dillon(a)gtsip.net [mailto:michael.dillon@gtsip.net] > Sent: 17 April 2000 13:12 > To: lir-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: RIPE NCC Issues > > > On Mon, 17 April 2000, Gareth Staff wrote: > > > Furthermore, RIPE is made up of numerous business interests and that > > the RIPE NCC is, in effect, employed by these businesses > for the express > > purpose of handling their IP address requests. > > This is an understandable misunderstanding but nevertheless, > a misunderstanding. First you should remember that a > not-for-profit organization like RIPE is typically not > employed by anyone but is operated by a group of members for > the benefit of the group as a whole and often for the benefit > of the general public as well. Secondly, you may wish to note > that RIPE serves not only businesses but also academic > institutions, governmental organizations and, often > indirectly, the general public in Europe, the Middle East and > Northern Africa. Thankyou for this clarification. Perhaps it was my inadequate phraseology that led to this comment. I agree that I missed out the non-business oriented members, and will bear this in mind. The comment I made was intended to mean that it was the 'members' who 'employ' the RIPE NCC by way of membership fees. > > Since there are many issues that have been raised (and I have yet to > > see a constructive response from the RIPE NCC management) I feel > > it necessary to ask the question.. > > > > Who does the RIPE NCC management answer to ? > > First of all, they certainly do not answer to the members of > this mailing list. The list is available for interested > parties to discuss a specific set of issues, namely those > related to LIRs, but that doesn't mean the NCC management > reports to this list. If the people on this list are paid up members of RIPE, then you are implying that RIPE does not answer to it's members. If the recipients of this list are not necessarily members of RIPE, then perhaps you could point me in the direction of the 'members' mailing list. > You need to be aware that there is a somewhat complex > structure that has been built up over the years. On the one > hand, RIPE is a type of membership organization that answers > to its members and has built a tradition of focussing its > activities in areas that its members are willing to support. > This can be tricky at times because many of the members are > businesses that compete directly in one or more Internet > related industries. If RIPE has to answer to it's members, then this is the kind of verification that I wanted, but I would like to hear it from the RIPE NCC management. > On the other hand, RIPE NCC is part of a global structure > that manages those aspects of the Internet which need to be > jointly managed. There is a central focus for this management > structure in ICANN http://www.icann.org which has taken over > the management and policy activities that were formerly > handled by IANA http://www.iana.org and the IETF > http://www.ietf.org. The RIPE NCC is one of three global > organizations (soon to be 5) that handle the day to day > activities of IP address registration in their region. The > others are ARIN http://www.arin.net in the Americas and > Sothern Africa, and APNIC http://www.apnic.net in the > Asia-Pacific region. These three organizations could be said > to also answer to ICANN and the ASO council of ICANN because > they must administer policies which are agreeable to all > parts of this planet. > > If this sounds a lot like a complex political beast, then you > are beginning to understand. I am aware of the various political affiliations that encompass the world, I was attepting the simplify the picture and focus on what I perceive to be the core of the problem. > > I would like to see the RIPE NCC being more open to these > discussions, and > > honest about > > any problems that they are having. I really do not think it > is acceptable to > > act as though we, > > as members of the RIPE community, do not have a right to > know what is going > > on within > > the organisation and to promote a closed door policy as far > as information > > is concerned. > > And now you should understand why you see the typical > symptoms of a bureaucracy within RIPE. This is neither bad > nor good; just one of those things that are inevitable in > organizations that must serve many masters. What I'm talking about is not bureaucracy related symptoms, but rather deliberate actions on the part of the management that under no circumstances can be condoned by any member of this community. I realise that I'm taking a lot upon myself for presuming to speak for all, but I am very confident that when everything comes out in the wash, as it surely must, RIPE members are going to be asking some very pointed questions of the way in which the RIPE NCC management has acted. > > After all, who pays the bills ? > > See the part about many masters... RIPE members then. > > Accountability for the services offered must be clarified > if positive action > > is to be taken, I would > > not like to see these issues ignored and swept under the > carpet, otherwise > > we face the prospect > > of having an organisation that we pay for, doesn't work for us, and > > implements internal policies > > that alienates its' staff to the point where they feel that > their only > > option is to leave. > > I have yet to see evidence that the issues are being ignored. > So far, I see the RIPE NCC attempting to deal with some > issues, discussing those issues openly, and finding that > there is some disagreement as to whether their plan of action > is the right one. Time will tell. I am not being unduly pessimistic here, I am trying to highlight issues with a view to getting them fixed, not form a lynch mob. > > This is something that all members of the community must > take seriously and > > I also do not see any evidence that people in the community > are not taking the issue seriously. They, like all of us, > have to balance many issues in their workaday lives and can > only give top priority to a small number of them. Since we > don't know all the issues vying for their attention, I think > it would be hasty for us to judge them with such little information. I don't believe I said that the community was not taking this issue seriously, merely affirmed the need. As for having 'such little information', this is part of what I am trying to address. > --- > Michael Dillon Phone: +44 (20) 7769 8489 > Mobile: +44 (79) 7099 2658 > Director of Product Engineering, GTS IP Services > 151 Shaftesbury Ave. > London WC2H 8AL > UK > I would just like to add that we fully support the principles upon which RIPE functions. It is not my intention to simply supply a list of problems, rather to open the discussion to facilitate the remedy, whatever form that may take. Regards, Gareth Staff Program Manager, EMEA Operations UUNET (An MCI WorldCom company) gareths@uk.uu.net/gstaff@uu.net

1 0

Re: RIPE NCC Issues
by michael.dillon＠gtsip.net 17 Apr '00

17 Apr '00

On Mon, 17 April 2000, Gareth Staff wrote: > Furthermore, RIPE is made up of numerous business interests and that > the RIPE NCC is, in effect, employed by these businesses for the express > purpose of handling their IP address requests. This is an understandable misunderstanding but nevertheless, a misunderstanding. First you should remember that a not-for-profit organization like RIPE is typically not employed by anyone but is operated by a group of members for the benefit of the group as a whole and often for the benefit of the general public as well. Secondly, you may wish to note that RIPE serves not only businesses but also academic institutions, governmental organizations and, often indirectly, the general public in Europe, the Middle East and Northern Africa. > Since there are many issues that have been raised (and I have yet to > see a constructive response from the RIPE NCC management) I feel > it necessary to ask the question.. > > Who does the RIPE NCC management answer to ? First of all, they certainly do not answer to the members of this mailing list. The list is available for interested parties to discuss a specific set of issues, namely those related to LIRs, but that doesn't mean the NCC management reports to this list. You need to be aware that there is a somewhat complex structure that has been built up over the years. On the one hand, RIPE is a type of membership organization that answers to its members and has built a tradition of focussing its activities in areas that its members are willing to support. This can be tricky at times because many of the members are businesses that compete directly in one or more Internet related industries. On the other hand, RIPE NCC is part of a global structure that manages those aspects of the Internet which need to be jointly managed. There is a central focus for this management structure in ICANN http://www.icann.org which has taken over the management and policy activities that were formerly handled by IANA http://www.iana.org and the IETF http://www.ietf.org. The RIPE NCC is one of three global organizations (soon to be 5) that handle the day to day activities of IP address registration in their region. The others are ARIN http://www.arin.net in the Americas and Sothern Africa, and APNIC http://www.apnic.net in the Asia-Pacific region. These three organizations could be said to also answer to ICANN and the ASO council of ICANN because they must administer policies which are agreeable to all parts of this planet. If this sounds a lot like a complex political beast, then you are beginning to understand. > I would like to see the RIPE NCC being more open to these discussions, and > honest about > any problems that they are having. I really do not think it is acceptable to > act as though we, > as members of the RIPE community, do not have a right to know what is going > on within > the organisation and to promote a closed door policy as far as information > is concerned. And now you should understand why you see the typical symptoms of a bureaucracy within RIPE. This is neither bad nor good; just one of those things that are inevitable in organizations that must serve many masters. > After all, who pays the bills ? See the part about many masters... > Accountability for the services offered must be clarified if positive action > is to be taken, I would > not like to see these issues ignored and swept under the carpet, otherwise > we face the prospect > of having an organisation that we pay for, doesn't work for us, and > implements internal policies > that alienates its' staff to the point where they feel that their only > option is to leave. I have yet to see evidence that the issues are being ignored. So far, I see the RIPE NCC attempting to deal with some issues, discussing those issues openly, and finding that there is some disagreement as to whether their plan of action is the right one. > This is something that all members of the community must take seriously and I also do not see any evidence that people in the community are not taking the issue seriously. They, like all of us, have to balance many issues in their workaday lives and can only give top priority to a small number of them. Since we don't know all the issues vying for their attention, I think it would be hasty for us to judge them with such little information. --- Michael Dillon Phone: +44 (20) 7769 8489 Mobile: +44 (79) 7099 2658 Director of Product Engineering, GTS IP Services 151 Shaftesbury Ave. London WC2H 8AL UK

1 0

RIPE NCC Issues
by Gareth Staff 17 Apr '00

17 Apr '00

To put some perspective on my position within UUNET, Stephen Burley frequently actions my requests for address space for new and developing countries within Europe. I have been observing the current discussions on this workgroup with increasing alarm. It is my understanding that RIPE is a function that is necessary for the intelligent control of limited address space, and that the RIPE NCC management team are responsible for the operations that go into allocating this address space. Furthermore, RIPE is made up of numerous business interests and that the RIPE NCC is, in effect, employed by these businesses for the express purpose of handling their IP address requests. Since there are many issues that have been raised (and I have yet to see a constructive response from the RIPE NCC management) I feel it necessary to ask the question.. Who does the RIPE NCC management answer to ? >From a business perspective, something which seems to be lacking from the responses that I have seen, there has to be someone responsible for the policies of the RIPE NCC management. I would sincerely hope that it is the members of RIPE that the RIPE NCC must answer to, and that the forum for these policies must be this mailing list. If this is the case, then I see little value in the service being offered at the moment, and would like to see some positive emails on what the RIPE NCC can do to help alleviate the problems that we are all seeing. My primary concern is the current turnover of hostmasters that deal with all of our requests. A high turnover of staff is almost always a result of poor management, and unless this is addressed, all other issues become secondary. There are staffing problems in all organisations, from obtaining the services of suitable candidates for the post, to staff retention. If the RIPE NCC are having trouble in this area, then perhaps they should request the help of the members of RIPE, all of whom have many years of experience. I would like to see the RIPE NCC being more open to these discussions, and honest about any problems that they are having. I really do not think it is acceptable to act as though we, as members of the RIPE community, do not have a right to know what is going on within the organisation and to promote a closed door policy as far as information is concerned. After all, who pays the bills ? Accountability for the services offered must be clarified if positive action is to be taken, I would not like to see these issues ignored and swept under the carpet, otherwise we face the prospect of having an organisation that we pay for, doesn't work for us, and implements internal policies that alienates its' staff to the point where they feel that their only option is to leave. This is something that all members of the community must take seriously and take some time to address if we are to effect some improvement in services. Yours sincerely, Gareth Staff. Program Manager, EMEA Operations UUNET (An MCI WorldCom company) gareths@uk.uu.net/gstaff@uu.net

1 0

Further to the training questions
by Stephen Burley 14 Apr '00

14 Apr '00

Hi The lack of response worries me to my questions about training i therefore would like to request some changes to a few things. 1. Since the RIPE NCC members are basically funding the education policy, (to which you have a documented policy)it would be in the best interest of the community if we were informed yearly of : a)What courses were suggested by hostmaster and other personel. b)which courses were rejected and on what grounds. c)which courses were completed and any certification recieved. Also what incentives are offered to hostmasters as rewards for furthering there "Internet" knowledge. Our hostmasters are our most valuable asset in the NCC, if we do not look after them and keep the m up to date it is only us that suffer, with this in mind i would like to see the above in place. I would also like to see this information for the last 3 years. 2. To relieve the stress on the wait que i would like to see a standard a min ssignment window applied to all none new LIR's, something not too small but something not too large say a /25 - this means that the hostmasters would not be boged down with small insignificant requests and would be able to concentrate on answering the larger requests thus getting used to larger business needs. Regards, Stephen Burley UUNET EMEA Hostmaster

7 8

Clarification of past few days.
by Stephen Burley 14 Apr '00

14 Apr '00

Hi I would like to clarify the points that have been raised over the pas few days just to avoid any confusion. 1. Hostmasters gaining expierience from visiting the work enviroments of various ISP's 2. Adequate training for the Hostmasters including incentives to expand knowledge and experiance. 3. The unnecessary length of the wait Q. I do not want the issues to get clouded in any way, they are linked only by the knock on effect of one problem effecting another, and as such should be treated as seperate. I realise after reading some of the emails i have posted they may have been interpreted as bullish if looked at from the wrong perspective. Change for the better only ever comes about with much discussion and listening from all parties....but unfortunmatly this particular discussion has been unusualy one sided........ May I remind all, the RIPE NCC works for and is funded by the RIPE community at large. This means that the NCC is directly accountable for any action taken/not taken bringing negative effects to bear on NCC or the RIPE Community at large. I would just like to praise the NCC on the whole for the sterling work the hostmasters and other groups are doing, however i feel its time to take alook at the service we are being forced to accept and how our money is being spent. I am not trying to get at individuals within the NCC all i am trying to do is get the managment to revisit any problems effecting RIPE be it wait Q problems or skill shortage problems(which we have all been through). I hope this is listened by the right people with the right frame of mind so we can move forward in our efforts to continue to show the rest of the world how a internet IP registry should be run. Awaiting further open discussion. Kindest Regards Stephen Burley UUNET EMEA Hostmaster.

1 0

REMINDER: ICANN Board nominations
by Hans Petter Holen 14 Apr '00

14 Apr '00

Please note that this nomination both serves the purpose of findig a sucessor to Pindar Wong, but also serves the purpose of creating a list of candidates to supplement the ICANN board in the unlikely case any of the other board members are stepping down. -hph ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Wilson" <pwilson(a)apnic.net> To: <aso-announce(a)aso.icann.org> Sent: Friday, April 14, 2000 3:06 AM Subject: [aso-policy] [aso-announce] REMINDER: ICANN Board nominations > REMINDER: Call for ICANN Board nominations (ASO) > > In compliance with the ASO MoU (http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/aso-mou.html) > the Address Council and ICANN have issued a call for nominations to the > ICANN Board, of candidates to fill vacant ASO seats on the ICANN board as > they become vacant. > > The first ASO seat scheduled to become vacant is currently occupied by Mr. > Pindar Wong, who will stand down from the ICANN Board on 30 September 2000. > However, candidates nominated at this time may also be chosen by the AC to > fill seats which become vacant before or after this time. Note that > appointments to the ICANN board must satisfy the geographic diversity > constraints specified in section 3c of the ASO MoU. > > Any individual may be nominated within this process, with the exception of > any official of a national government or a multinational entity established > by treaty or other agreement between national governments (ICANN Bylaws Art. > V., Sec 5.). Self-nominations are permitted. > > Nominations should be sent by email to <secretariat(a)aso.icann.org> and > should state the following details : > > A. Nominee details > > 1. Full name > 2. Organisational affiliation > 3. Email address > 4. Physical address > 5. Country of residence > 6. Telephone contact > 7. Biography > > B. Details of nominating individual > > 1. Full name > 2. Organisational affiliation > 3. Email address > 4. Country of residence > > Nominations must be submitted in English and must be received by the ASO > Secretariat before 0900 GMT 19 April 2000 (30 days prior to the General > Assembly meeting). After nomination all nominees will be contacted via email > to confirm their willingness to serve as an ICANN Director. If the nominee > is not contactable via email then the nomination will not be confirmed, and > nominee must explicitly confirm the nomination for the nomination to be > considered confirmed. > > All confirmed nominations will be listed on the ASO web site (see > http://www.aso.icann.org) as soon as they are confirmed. The list of > nominated individuals and the supporting comments will be passed to the > Address Council after all nominees are confirmed, and prior to the General > Assembly meeting on 19 May 2000. > > More information regarding the GA and nominations process will be posted to > the ASO web site (http://www.aso.icann.org) in due course. > > END > > * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-announce * > * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-announce-request(a)aso.icann.org * > * on-line archive: http://aso.icann.org/wilma-bin/wilma/aso-policy * > * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to aso-policy-request(a)aso.icann.org * >

1 0

RE: Further to the training questions
by Dan Lyon 13 Apr '00

13 Apr '00

Neil, > Perhaps someone from the NCC could comment on how appropriate or > not this is for their staff? I'd add to the above strong > communication and time management skills. Agreed. And the points you raise are general requirements......as with any customer facing role. > > Hope that helps answer your request. > > Dan thanks - the point I'm trying to make is that UUNET [and probably > a million other ISPs] have already built suitable programs that > could be used by the RIPE NCC for the benefit of the RIPE community. > So rather than ask questions and try to micro manage - we > should offer > our viewpoints and lead by example. Totally agreed. Cheers Dan. -- Dan Lyon -- Project Manager EMEA Operations UUNET, 330 The Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WQ Voice : +44(0)1223 581008 Fax: +44(0)1223 250373 e-mail : daniell(a)uk.uu.net -- UUNET - An MCI Worldcom Company

1 0

RE: Further to the training questions
by Dan Lyon 13 Apr '00

13 Apr '00

Neil, Perhaps I am better placed to answer this one than Stephen is. He is our EMEA hostmaster, but I am heavily involved in the setup of new countries for UUNET, therefore understand the structure and requirements for staff from day one. Let me set the scene.... We have a central installs team in Amsterdam. They are responsible for the local installs teams in each country we roll out. It is the install engineers that perform the hostmaster function of working the 141's and checking and vetting that customer applications are valid, correctly formatted, logical, and make correct use of technology. When we set up a new registry, as we start up a new country, the install team in Amsterdam will perform the hostmaster function for the new country in the early stages. They are backed up by Stephen (EMEA Hostmaster) at all times. The typical level of qualification of the install engineers in Amsterdam is: Good technology background. ICRC/ACRC Cisco trained. Hands on experience. Have attended the RIPE LIR course. Good internet knowledge. Good technology knowledge to know when customers are using IP space inefficiently. As staff are brought on board in each new country/registry, they will go through all these courses to make sure that they understand what they are doing. They will also spend an extended period with the install team in Amsterdam making sure they have sufficient experience and skills to do their job well. Once there are staff on the ground in a country that have been trained, they are still required to pass all 141's thru the team in Amsterdam and the EMEA hostmaster, until such time as the team in Amsterdam and the EMEA hostmaster feel that the country can stand on it's own. Only then are they allowed to pass requests direct to the RIPE NCC and even then, all large/unusual requests are handled by the EMEA hostmaster directly. Incentives are difficult to quantify, as we do not have "hostmasters" per say, more skilled engineers that incorporate the hostmaster function as part of their job description. All IE's are encouraged to have a keen interest in technology, and are offered full access to UUNET internal and external training programmes, covering many technological aspects as well as personal development concepts. All courses are 100 percent paid for by UUNET, and I am yet to hear of any member of staff that has had a training request turned down. Regular updates of the courses that are available in the coming months are circulated to *all* employees by e-mail. Management encourages the engineers to expand on weaknesses in the skills set, and promotes timely and fruitful training that helps the engineers keep on top of the rapidly changing technology used in the ISP industry. There are the usual incentives of pay etc. etc. plus where required the option to travel to a country and spend time assisting the install staff in that country with their peronsal and team development. Hope that helps answer your request. If you want to know anything more (within reason) just ask!! Cheers Dan. -- Dan Lyon -- Project Manager EMEA Operations UUNET, 330 The Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WQ Voice : +44(0)1223 581008 Fax: +44(0)1223 250373 e-mail : daniell(a)uk.uu.net -- UUNET - An MCI Worldcom Company > -----Original Message----- > From: Neil J. McRae [mailto:neil@COLT.NET] > Sent: 13 April 2000 11:11 > To: Stephen Burley > Cc: lir-wg(a)ripe.net; Neil J. McRae > Subject: Re: Further to the training questions > > > On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 08:55:00 +0000 > Stephen Burley <stephenb(a)uk.uu.net> wrote: > > > 2. To relieve the stress on the wait que i would like to > see a standard > > a min ssignment window applied to all none new LIR's, > something not too > > small but something not too large say a /25 - this means that the > > hostmasters would not be boged down with small > insignificant requests > > and would be able to concentrate on answering the larger > requests thus > > getting used to larger business needs. > > I would not like to see this, I think that it is vital that > there is no assignment window to new registries. Although I think > that if new registries are being managed by exeprienced people > who have demonstrated their understanding of the procedures > then they should be given an assignment window. So if you left > UUNET to setup stephenswarez.com and opened up an LIR > you would not have to go through the zero assignment window > issues again. > > Stephen - as you have so many interesting ideas and questions > perhaps you could post what UUNET offer as incentives to their > hostmaster people in terms of the questions that you posed in your > mail, this could help educate the NCC into deploying courses that > you, and I'm sure others, felt were appropriate. Perhaps you could > vounteer to setup a training work group? > > Regards, > Neil. > -- > Neil J. McRae C O L T I N T E R N E T > neil(a)COLT.NET "In this world there's two kinds of people my friend: > Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig?" > > >

2 1

Related topic - Hostmasters visiting LIRS
by Stephen Burley 12 Apr '00

12 Apr '00

Hi After reading and thinking about what has been said and what has more pointedly not been said i would like the answers to a few questions: 1. What are the qualifications looked for in a hostmaster? 2. What training program is in place to make sure all are kept up to date with new developments from the ISP/Telco industry (ie cisco courses etc.) 3. What incentives are in place to encourage hostmasters to increase their knowledge? These are serious questions which deserve a careful answer. Regards Stephen Burley UUNET EMEA Hostmaster

1 0

Re: RIPE hostmasters visiting LIRs
by Joao Luis Silva Damas 12 Apr '00

12 Apr '00

Dear all, I believe this thread never really came to an end. We have been thinking long about how to address the distance that is perceived as separating the RIPE NCC registration services from everyday operations of ISPs. We have considered the proposed idea of having RIPE NCC hostmasters visiting ISPs to get in touch with their daily operations and needs. The preceding mails have raised the issues of how to select the LIRs to be visited, the finance implications of having the hostmasters travel to these ISP locations, the potential danger of lobbying and whether those visits should be used as a mechanism for helping ISPs in auditing processes. To these, I would like to add the potential disruptions to operations that these visits may have for the Registration Services department. Now, financial issues could definitely be resolved in agreement with the membership. The potential for lobbying is a worrisome prospect, not because I fear that anyone would actually even think about it, but because should any allegations be raised it would be difficult to prove them wrong and in any case a certain damage would have been done. Mainly because of this, I would rather not have RIPE NCC hostmasters visit individual members. However, we do acknowledge the need for hostmasters to be more up to date with developments in the industry and the fact that it would be very benefitial to increase awareness of daily ISP operations within Registration Services. To address this, and some other internal issues, we will be hiring for a new position within the RIPE NCC with the specific function of providing internal technical advise and training that will enable us to better track developments and be more familiar with everyday operations. This person, will not be routinely involved in the handling of member address requests and might be a good candidate to visit a few LIRs selected randomly from different "pools" (big, small, different economic and regulatory environments,...) in the future. I believe this solution can effectively address the concerns raised by this discussion while minimizing the drawbacks of the solutions proposed so far and also has other benefits for the RIPE NCC. Hope to hear from you, Joao Damas Head of external services RIPE NCC

2 3