October 2020 - members-discuss

External thoughts on the Executive Board Election TF
by Harry Cross 11 Nov '20

11 Nov '20

Hi all, I've just had a cursory glance through the report and the mailing list minutes. I'd like to ask why the mailing list was not open to all please, I saw the minutes mentioned this but there was no explanation of why? Surely if the membership had requested for this to happen, it makes sense to allow them to be involved in the discussion. Some people may not want to commit to a full task force membership, but still give their view. I also tried to get to the Doodles and they don't work. Are they public at all please? Thanks Harry >

13 27

Lifting Moderation of Membership Discussion List
by Remco van Mook 31 Oct '20

31 Oct '20

Dear members, The Executive Board met today and decided to remove moderation of the members-discuss mailing list. Instead, if a subscriber sends emails that are not in accordance with the purpose of the mailing list or with the principles of the RIPE Code of Conduct, this individual subscriber will be under moderation from that point on. This evaluation and moderation will be conducted by the Executive Board Secretary and a RIPE NCC staff member. All emails, accepted or rejected, will be archived on the RIPE NCC website. I urge all members to take note of the Code of Conduct that should be adhered to when mailing to the list: https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/ripe-mailing-list-ripe-forum-code-of-… If you suspect someone is violating the purpose of the list or there is a breach of the Code of Conduct, please notify the RIPE NCC at <ncc(a)ripe.net> rather than responding to the email in question. Regards, Remco van Mook RIPE NCC Executive Board

2 1

Resolution 3 Recommendation
by Antonios Chariton (daknob) 28 Oct '20

28 Oct '20

Dear Members, Since voting has started, I will do my best to avoid siding with either the Yes or the No side, while at the same time bring up a suggestion for this resolution, should it be rejected and can be reworked into the future. Moderators, if you think this should be released after the poll closes, feel free to do that. The document I read, for Resolution 3, contains the wording "a certified copy of his/her official identification document”. I would simply like to point out, again, without getting into politics, that there exist people in disputed territories (or equivalent status), who may not have an official identification document that is considered valid by the Netherlands. There are different kinds of such territories and accepted documents. For example, some of them are recognized by a single country, while some others are not recognized as a country, because possibly of political pressure, but there exist processes of handling official documents, as an exception, and they are referred to as “areas”. A person can travel to the Netherlands with this passport, although the issuing country is not recognized as a country. A person can get a visa there to stay, and it’s mostly considered equivalent, at least to me. I do not say that this should or should not be included, and maybe the decision has already been made (to not), and possibly the Legal team understands the situation better (there may be requirements by Dutch law), I just want to bring this into attention in case it was overlooked, in order to avoid future issues. Best regards, Antonis

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [exec-board] ripe-ncc-executive-board-election-task-force-report
by Alex de Joode 28 Oct '20

28 Oct '20

Thanks Christian, I missed those. "(b) a signed statement in which he/she declares that he/she shall adhere to the Code of Conduct for candidates for the Executive Board as adopted by the Executive Board and published on the Association’s website, and that he/she has never committed any fraud or other financial misconduct in any jurisdiction" This is extremely broad. It also opens the possibility that RIPE NCC has to become an arbiter wether or not a certain action of a nominee constitutes fraud (with all the possible liabilities for RIPE NCC in civil court). Legally it would be preferable to just focus on 'outcomes': has there been any verdict against a nominee. Court cases can be won by nominees .. Is the wording deliberate (ie as broad as possible) Ifso have you thought about the above scenario ? -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex(a)idgara.nl | +31651108221 On Tue, 27-10-2020 16h 36min, "Kaufmann, Christian" <ckaufman(a)akamai.com> wrote: > Dear Alex, Dear Members, Here you can find the exact wordings and details: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2020/proposed… and here is the rest of the supporting documents we have sent out before. https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2020/supporti… Hope this helps, Best, Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board From: Alex de Joode <adejoode(a)idgara.nl> > Reply to: Alex de Joode <adejoode(a)idgara.nl> > Date: Tuesday, 27. October 2020 at 14:31 > To: "members-discuss(a)ripe.net" <members-discuss(a)ripe.net>, "exec-board(a)ripe.net" <exec-board(a)ripe.net> > Subject: [exec-board] ripe-ncc-executive-board-election-task-force-report The report states: 7. Other requirements of nominees Recommendation It was agreed that the candidates must agree to follow the code of conduct at all times (see point 6 above). The nominee should also sign a statement certifying that they have not committed fraud or other financial misconduct in any jurisdiction. This requirement should be added to the Articles of Association. This is very broad as it pertains to behaviour. Normally this is stated as "not being convicted for fraud or other financial misconduct in any jurisdiction". So in order to know what we are voting on tomorrow, can the Board show us the exact textual changes we are voting on? Thanks. Alex/(as-spectre) -- IDGARA | Alex de Joode | alex(a)idgara.nl | +31651108221

4 6

Injection of false RPKI ROAs
by Maxi 28 Oct '20

28 Oct '20

Dear fellow Members, Dear RIPE Team, We currently discuss a somehow strange thing. Could the RIPE NCC be forced to inject false ROAs (e.g. for censorship)? If so, is there any legal framework for it? Does the RIPE NCC have any information on attempts? Best, Maxi Impressum: Zeug e.K. Hochstraße 15 92637 Theisseil Inhaber: Maximilian Schieder Telefon: 015678 572314 E-Mail: maxi(a)zeug.co Registergericht: Amtsgericht Weiden in der Oberpfalz Registernummer: HRA 2907

4 4

ripe-ncc-executive-board-election-task-force-report
by Alex de Joode 27 Oct '20

27 Oct '20

The report states:> > 7. Other requirements of nominees Recommendation It was agreed that the candidates must agree to follow the code of conduct at all times (see point 6 above). The nominee should also sign a statement certifying that they have not committed fraud or other financial misconduct in any jurisdiction. This requirement should be added to the Articles of Association. > > This is very broad as it pertains to behaviour. Normally this is stated as "not being convicted for fraud or other financial misconduct in any jurisdiction". > So in order to know what we are voting on tomorrow, can the Board show us the exact textual changes we are voting on? > Thanks, Alex -- SPECTRE/AS47482 | Alex de Joode | alex(a)idgara.nl | +31651108221

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Activity Plan and Budget 2021
by Hans Petter Holen 21 Oct '20

21 Oct '20

Hi Nick, > On 29 Sep 2020, at 17:06, Nick Hilliard (Network Ability Ltd) <nick(a)netability.ie <mailto:nick@netability.ie>> wrote: >> > > Hi Hans Petter, > > couple of queries here. > > 1. RIPE atlas measurements are growing much faster than ripe probe / anchor deployment. In addition, some of the older deployed probe stock is decaying. Is the capex allocation of €130k enough expenditure as part of the long term funding plan for Atlas to ensure that the current rate of increase of measurements can be sustained in the long term? Yes. In terms of measurements data storage and processing, we are aiming to migrate live storage and processing of the ever-growing dataset to the cloud (with proper in-house, offline backup plans). That significantly reduces the investments required for that part. Next to introduction of Software Probes and on replenishing the hardware probe network and keeping up and growing with new or uncovered ASes, so far we have generally relied on contributions from our sponsors. We are currently developing mid- and long-term plans for the supply of hardware probes, and we will inform the community and our membership as soon as we complete our proposal. > > 2. IT security: presumably this encompasses RPKI TA and hosted CA security management too? No. The security budget is not fully centralised. The costs for RPKI TA and hosted CA security management is budgeted as part of the RPKI budget. > 3. RIPE Chair Team: the allocation of €205k for Chair, Vice Chair and travel + subsistence looks surprisingly low given that the average personnel cost per FTE is listed as €102k. Separately, the board committed to ensuring independence of the RIPE Chair Team from the NCC. Can you provide information on how this independence will be maintained, and also reassurance that the RIPE Chair Team remuneration package has been designed or at least reviewed by an independent third party to ensure that it's appropriate for the positions? The remuneration component of the package covers the RIPE Chair but not the Vice Chair. Travel and expenses for both are covered, however. The travel expense budget is based on the travel expense budget for the previous RIPE Chair. For 2021 we have only budgeted for travel 75% of the previous years. The contract between the RIPE Chair and the RIPE NCC has been negotiated between the RIPE Chair and the RIPE NCC Executive board represented by the Chair and Treasurer. The contract includes multiple clauses that enforce the separation of the Chair position from influence by the RIPE NCC and its board. This contract has been reviewed by external legal experts for compliance with Dutch labour laws. The remuneration package is aligned with the RIPE NCC salaries which have been benchmarked by an external party. > 4. Software development: there's been some discussion about the RPKI validator. One issue that hasn't been touched on is the RIPE NCC's general involvement with software development where there are other third party packages available on a commercial or commercially-supported basis. This is an issue that was raised before (many years ago), specifically in the context of development of DNS software. Can you provide some info on what the RIPE NCC's governing policies are in this area? In this case, we follow the RIPE NCC’s roles and responsibilities as laid out here: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/what-we-do/ripe-ncc-association-roles-and-res… <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/what-we-do/ripe-ncc-association-roles-and-res…> We do not have specific policies for software development. Such decisions are made in consultation with the board and community. From what I recall there was no other viable RPKI validator when we started this development work, so an investment to bootstrap the whole system was needed. > 5. E-voting: as there are no alternatives in the short-term future, has the RIPE NCC confirmed that the E-voting platform will be fully GDPR compliant for the upcoming GM and also on Jan 1, 2021? I.e both in terms of potential brexit outcomes and also in terms of transatlantic data transfer following the Schrems 2 ruling. The e-voting platform for the upcoming GM is GDPR compliant. Our third-party platform provider has confirmed that no personal data is transferred to the USA, therefore the recent Schrems II ruling does not have an impact in our relationship. Regarding the legal implications due to Brexit, we are following the relevant developments. When the data protection legal framework is clarified, we will make sure that all amendments necessary are performed in order to comply with the law. I hope this answers your questions, but are happy to further clarify if needed. Hans Petter Holen Managing Director, RIPE NCC

1 0

Webauthn
by Bogdan I. 14 Oct '20

14 Oct '20

Hello What would be your opinion of implementing Webauthn / U2F by security keys for the RIPE NCC website's two factor authentication, in addition to the current TOTP system? The current TOTP based system works fine, but i find using a physical security key to be more convenient and more secure. -- Bogdan Ionescu Redcluster LTD

5 5

Draft Activity Plan 2021 - RPKI development
by Erik Bais 01 Oct '20

01 Oct '20

Dear Hans Petter and fellow members, In the draft activity plan, there is a page about the current RPKI cost and plans of the further development. The plans state on Page 14 - 1.6 RPKI: 6 FTE and a 963.000 euro budget ... <begin quote> Activities in 2021 Our priority over the coming period will be ensuring a stable and resilient RPKI Trust Anchor and Certificate Authority. In 2020, we carried out a third-party security and risk assessment of our RPKI platform. We are now working to define a complete audit framework for RPKI, with the aim of having the audit performed early next year by a third party. Next year we will implement changes to our internal processes and documented procedures on the basis of this audit, as well as things like more granular monitoring and small technical changes that ensure compliance with the relevant RFCs. Aside from that, we are planning significant improvements in our infrastructure to allow high availability and resiliency for the RPKI repositories. In last year’s Activity Plan, we said we would consider whether we should continue to support our RPKI Validator, as it needed further development to match the quality of alternative tools that were now available. Because our RPKI Validator remains the second most widely used tool (with 32% “market share”), we decided that we will continue to support it in 2021 and we aim to make a longer-term decision soon. Finally, we will continue to build awareness of RPKI through training, outreach and promotion efforts. </end quote> I would like to argue that further development of Proof of Concept software (the RPKI validator) isn't required anymore now that there are multiple open source tools available on the market. The RIPE NCC isn't a software development house .. and I don't recall the RIPE NCC has the planning to become one ... I would like to see further development of the RIPE NCC RPKI Validator discontinued as of Jan. 1st 2021. The backend software / infra for the signing of the RPKI environment still needs a lot of work and so does the training (awareness) about RPKI .. so I don't think that the resources or budgeted cost should be reduced, but is needs to be revised... I think that the efforts should be put somewhere else on RPKI. That the RIPE NCC RPKI Validator is widely used, is because of the training efforts from the RIPE NCC.. and I think the community is better served with a more open approach about the usage of other validators, instead of trying to keep members to use a Java based software package. When the RIPE NCC started with the development of the RPKI Validator, there was a lack of other software ... but as things stand today, there are multiple open source implementations and this is a nice moment to go back to the core activity of the RIPE NCC. I know that with the above, I would probably not give the internal development team enough credits for their work and effort in the past years. I do value their work to where they brought this, but it is time to put the focus on the core activities like the signing side of the RPKI and a more robust RPKI infra instead of the validation software. Regards, Erik Bais

12 12