- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Who elected to the fee task force?
by Lu Heng 18 Jan '12

18 Jan '12

Hi Last time there was a opening for 4 members to join the new member fee task force, was the four member already selected? -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

2 2

SOPA and Ripe's police order
by Lu Heng 18 Jan '12

18 Jan '12

Hi colleagues: As a owner of a company have great relation of fighting censorship in China, I feel strongly about today's bill, and should like to share few of my concerns and thoughts about how the things might going. I personally didn't know we have so many regulations in EU about internet before I raised my ISP business. and I didn't realize that receiving legal latter will be part of the business.(as my lawyer count, on average, we receive about 100-200 legal notice per day, and we need to take down over 100 domains each day for the copy right infringement). Futurenally, I also have a company in China, so that legal costs has been kept in a relative low level. In last year short after the Ripe 63, Ripe was ordered by Dutch police force to take measurement of certain IP ranges.with today's US bill, we are very much concerning what government might take lead to in the future of internet. In China, all ISP have to censer themselves before they allow anything going public, otherwise it will results hash punishment up to a level that entire data center can be disconnected just by single offensive website(which in view of certain interest group). Will that happen one day in EU or US, if this trends continues? People might know that many Chinese use VPN service overseas to get over the firewall built by the government, however, as a company have relation in the business, we also see another type of VPN service being offered in China has increase popularity, it was offered to foreign Chinese in order also them to get back China. The reason for them to "to back China" is this: http://www.iqiyi.com/dianying/20120110/376d083f97061688.html Instead of actual video, You will see a quote "This video is only available for mainland China customers due to copyright restrictions" The reason this happen is because large amount of Chinese company(often legally US based) get sued by copyright groups in US/EU, therefore they impose the censorship to censer the content out of China. Does this censorship has anything different from the government censorship in China? Was that both block of certain content because of the interest of certain group of people? I am personally not interested in politics, the right or wrong of the content does not interest me. but as far as I have been to three Ripe meetings, I do feel a strong sense from the persons built the internet(look at how the basic protocol is written, it was very surprise me that anybody can announcing any range that doesn't require some sign of paper), that the internet should be a open and free place to share what you think what you thought, but not a place that police and government can break in at any minus and tell you what to do. As ISP, we are the ground of the internet, if this trends continues, I was very much worried that one day we have to do what Chinese ISPs are doing, we have to look carefully about every website's content and afraid in one middle night our entire business can be shut down due to something that we don't even know of. I thought it was impossible in western country, until I saw how aggressive the SOPA/Protect IP looks like. I don't know if something similar will happen in EU in a near future, my company lawyer told me that as long as we have data center here in EU, we are bounded by the EU laws. So are you, my colleagues. Here is just my 2 cents thought, I would hear from any colleagues that share the same concern as me and my company do. The raising legal costs and restrictions will not only damage the small business, start ups, it also require us one day become some sort of "internet local government" to police our client, and I wish that day never happen. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

1 0

RIPE DB NRTM access.
by Pawel Tyll 10 Jan '12

10 Jan '12

Hello people (and ticket bots :>), I wanted to do some BGP filtering automation today, learned some interesting things in the process. I decided on setting up a local mirror of RIPE IRR and was quite puzzled with reasoning behind this: http://www.ripe.net/data-tools/db/nrtm-mirroring So, I can download the whole database snapshot for free from ftp.ripe.net, wasting bandwidth and other resources, or on the other hand I can pay for doing things the right and efficient way, which in the process is effectively cheaper for all involved parties. So the question is - what gives? :) - why does RIPE insist that I download >200MB of compressed data instead of catching up probably few hundred KB of daily changes? --Pawel.

7 11

Task Force
by Nigel Titley 28 Dec '11

28 Dec '11

Folks, I've had twenty volunteers already for the charging scheme task force. I'm going to give it to the end of today (midnight, GMT) and then I'm going to close the call. We'll then select, randomly, four of these volunteers to sit on the task force. All the best Nigel

17 25

Executive Board Activity Since the RIPE NCC General Meeting
by Nigel Titley 22 Dec '11

22 Dec '11

Dear all, We would like to give you an update on the thoughts and decisions of the RIPE NCC Executive Board since the RIPE 63 Meeting and RIPE NCC General Meeting three weeks ago. On Friday, 18 November, the Executive Board met for a teleconference to review the events and discussions that took place during that very busy week. First of all, we were all very pleased by the opportunity to meet so many of our members; we appreciate the lively discussions and see them as a sign that the RIPE NCC membership is very much alive and kicking. Thank you all for your contributions, whether they took place here on the mailing list or at the microphones in Vienna. The main business we conducted during our Board meeting revolved around the Charging Scheme, Budget and Activity Plan for 2012, as you would probably expect. As the proposed Charging Scheme did not find sufficient support, we will use the 2011 Charging Scheme for 2012. Because the 2011 Charging Scheme does not explicitly say that legacy space resources will have no impact on membership fees, the Board has decided to formally waive fees for legacy space resources for the coming year. With a view towards a sustainable and member-supported Charging Scheme, the Board would like to call for a small task force of RIPE NCC members and RIPE NCC staff to work together with Executive Board members on models for such a new Charging Scheme. Axel will work with his staff on a draft charter for this task force. Further to comments made during the General Meeting, we asked Axel to ensure a better alignment between the Activity Plan and Budget structures. On the Budget, having examined our options in order to reduce the effects on the services we offer to members, we have made a reduction in costs of approximately 2%, mainly in the areas of Travel, RIPE meeting organisation and Training efficiency: especially as these were highlighted as suitable areas for economies by the membership. On the income for 2012, we are are now expecting a slight surplus because new members and holders of independent resources will remain a strong source of income. The membership also voted to have the RIPE NCC continue with development of Resource Certification (RPKI) including route object authorisations (ROAs). However the Board recognises that a number of concerns were raised about certification and will ensure that those concerns are taken into account as development goes ahead. You can find the minutes of the Executive Board teleconference at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/executive-board/minutes/draft-minutes… If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us at <exec-board(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Nigel Titley Chairman, Executive Board

4 5

Re: [members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees
by poty＠iiat.ru 16 Dec '11

16 Dec '11

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Phil Barton Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 5:59 PM To: Potapov Vladislav Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees "1. You contradict your own point. To raise more funds RIPE needed only to raise the prices in each category, not to change the basis of charging. The New Schema sought to change the basis of raising income by looking at other categories particularly the anomaly of PI's and is the reason for so many objections. It is a second issue that they raise income because of increased costs. In particular they wanted to bring the PI's into the formal scheme and have the users join RIPE." I don't think I contradict my own point. The schema must be stable. The only change we've seen up to now is the start of the IPv6 deployment which was already reflected in 2008 version. PI is here for many years. The fact that the RIPE NCC driven by some populism and based on some lobby managed to adopt the ill-conceived changes to the Schema in 2008 doesn't mean they did good job. For example, ASns at once became "special" and bring money of course, PIs - on the terms of dictated agreements and so on. It is this change that led to "anomaly of PI's". The way they tried to patch it in Schema 2012 is rude, poorly thought-out, unfair and punish more members which don't have such anomalies than the real guilty LIRs (and not LIRs). PIs become a sin, burdened with the double payment and very much involved in the side effect of shifting up in categories badly. But - you know - As soon as the community have voted we don't have the rights to blame it for its decision. "2. I have been involved for 3 -4 years, not much time compared to others, but the proposals round the new schema were discussed at every event. Perhaps the way they were discussed were subtle but I understood what they were trying to do and why. The final proposal made was merely to formalise this. And no I do not keep all the mailings and documents, it is just the impression I built up from the sessions I attended and the mailings I read." The policy process, especially in the world of finances, should be clear and open in the form of membership the RIPE NCC in. "Impressions", subtle moving, personal and other hidden ways of determining the policy - is very uneasy for most members which they showed at the last general meeting. As other RIPE policies the Schema must be discussed in the mailing list together with the principles and concerns it solves. And it MUST be stable for several years while there is no changes in the horizon! It doesn't mean no rises, but the schema itself must not be changed. "3. I may be mistaken on this point I thought RIPE were Belgium based and therefore if they were it was the price we paid for basing them there. But the point I make is Valid if salaries increase where our staff are based we have to pay more even (if in Russia as in the UK salaries in the corporate world are being held down). Decisions taken in other countries can affect the whole community look at the high Debt countries in the Eurozone and the immpact on the Euro. Just because one does not want it to be does not stop it." No it is Dutch-based. But you know - if there are international agreements involved it is not only one-side law that counts. "But it is the issues over PI's that is at the core of this and perhaps the new group will address this. We are a NPO. We joined RIPE to obtain our own IP addresses as the alternative to using PI's, so we of course tend to agree with the proposal. We raise one category in the new and old scheme because we now have a second allocation /21 as well as IPV6. If we did not ask for the second allocation we would remain at the smallest level." I can say that you are wrong at the point. It is easy to count according the document. But may I ask question about mentioned in the Schema "services"? Do you use them? "Perhaps the PI issue was sprung on some members and they should have been given time to adjust but also I think they shut their eyes to the wind of change presented at the meetings." The general meeting showed that the wind of change is not in the interests of the member. We are not thoughtless sailer - we can go against wrong tendencies. Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

1 0

Invitation to participate in the Charging Scheme Task Force
by Nigel Titley 16 Dec '11

16 Dec '11

Dear all, at the RIPE NCC Board Meeting, last Thursday, we agreed to set up a small task force, to work on a successor of the current RIPE NCC Charging Scheme. Apart from members from the Executive Board and RIPE NCC staff, we are looking for representatives from our members. We know some of you are interested in the topic, and would like to encourage you to volunteer to work on this important task. The composition of the task force will be two RIPE NCC staff members, two Board members and a maximum of four members. I have included the proposed charter of the task force, so that you know what you are getting yourselves into. You can reply either directly to me or to the list or both. If we get more than four volunteers then four will be chosen randomly. Looking forward to the results, Best regards, Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC Executive Board ----- Introduction In the course of 2011 the RIPE NCC Management and the RIPE NCC Board have put in a lot of effort to propose a new, future proof Charging Scheme. Several proposals were announced to the members-discuss mailing list in July and after extensive discussion with a variety of opinions and new models, the Executive Board decided to propose a different model having taken feedback into account. After further extensive discussion and comments, this model was voted down by the membership at the last General Meeting. To improve the Charging Scheme process and to get broader input on a future Charging Scheme model the Executive Board has decided to create a Task Force, representing different groups within the RIPE NCC organisation. Objectives of the Task Force The Task Force will have the following objectives: - Define the principles of a future Charging Scheme - Propose an improved process for the annual Charging Scheme discussions and adoption - Set a pricing structure for several years for Legacy holders - Advise the Executive Board on a discussion or resolution for the General Meeting in April 2011 The Task Force will not discuss or set any actual fees or prices. Participants of the Task Force To have an efficient task force the group will have to be limited in size. The Executive Board has selected key individuals that have put themselves forward, have good understanding of the Charging Scheme and represent a variety of member groups. The group will consist of participants from 3 groups namely: - RIPE NCC staff - Jochem de Ruig, Andrea Cima - RIPE NCC Executive Board – Remco van Mook, Dmitry Burkov - RIPE NCC members (4 representatives) Timeframe Several meetings/phone conferences in Q1 2012, send draft proposal to Board ahead of the General Meeting in April 2012.

11 11

Re: [members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees
by poty＠iiat.ru 15 Dec '11

15 Dec '11

-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Phil Barton Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 3:44 PM To: 'Jon Morby'; 'Carlos Friacas' Cc: 'Nigel Titley'; members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] {Spam?} RE: Surprise on renew fees Disagree on many points here. You wrote: "I agree the charging scheme and budget are not directly related - other than the total income and expenditure over a period should balance in a Not for Profit Organisation. The schema is just about how it is recovered - who pays what - not about how much is spent by the NPO." Yes, they are related! And this (unnecessarily) hard relation was made by the RIPE NCC itself. RIPE community has to renew the schema very often just to cover new expenses and to patch holes in (bad) thought procedure. I've already ask several questions about the new Schema - just too lazy to repeat them once more -you can look at them in the archives. I add to this one more doc - Activity Plan, which after many years become an ancient book of community wills without any relation to the understanding how effectively RIPE NCC does all the activities it mentions. Then: "However I have to say certainly the new Schema had been well debated over a long time and I personally feel vested interests stopped this when the majority were supportive or ambivalent." I don't know where it was debated, but according to the present rules it MUST BE debated in the open way - in the mailing list. Prior to publishing the Schema there was no debates around it (and around the principles of changes which should be incorporated in it either)! The Schema was published late - not in July as Nigel said, but in August (look at the date in the RIPE NCC repository) and the underlying reasons were hidden for community until I think the end of September. The vested interests you've mentioned are fully irrelevant in the context. The Schema 2012 becomes very questionable as many LIRs jumps 2-3 categories up just having 1 (one) PI (or not having PI at all), I even haven't started to mention some very rude patches to show the strongest fight for greedy LIRs having huge profit using cheap chunks of PI, and another point - intrusion of tie-in sale of RIPE NCC services. Then: "Also by LAW people in Belgium have to receive a wage increase every 3 months in line with the Gezondheidsindex so we have to pay staff more." It's the country's problem, the RIPE NCC serves not only Belgium - why should people from other countries pay for it according Belgium law? Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [#27249] Surprise on renew fees
by network＠privatelayer.com 15 Dec '11

15 Dec '11

Jon, We never asked to join this list anyway. Please remove us from as it is creating SPAM in our ticket system. James Prado Private Layer INC

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees
by poty＠iiat.ru 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Lu Heng Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 3:41 AM To: paolo.difrancesco(a)level7.it Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees > Well, if the new 2012 charging scheme was processed, then it will be based on amount of resource we are using. The 2012 had several bad and quite unfair flaws in many sides of its preparing procedure, its structure and the undercarpet considerations - that is why it didn't see support. >if IP's price goes up, it not only benefits the new comer who got the IP but also >the old ones who already had the IP. If everybody is holding something has same value, >why one party should be paying more while another should be paying less. It's not so easy. I think you do not understand the scheme correctly. "old" LIRs if they want to get a block would be counted in the same way as newcomers for the block, so the fairness of getting addresses is better in the scheme. On the other hand - if the minimal block in "old" times was /16 and the then-new LIR got it and it is still enough or even not used even close to fully - it's unfair to punish the LIR. Many best practices at the time was not so flexible as now - and it led to "waste" in modern point of view, but it's very difficult to change the assignments now (initial criteria is still met) - why the LIR should suffer? Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

3 2

[#27119] PrivateLayer ticketsystem still on the RIPE members-discuss list ...
by Erik Bais 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

Dear members-discuss moderator / list owner / maintainer, Is it possible to simple remove everyone from Privatelayer from the list, for still having their ticketsystem on the list? And if possible, please do so. The time they had to fix this is insane and if they would actually be reading the list (or their own created tickets.), they could have fixed it months ago. Kind regards, Erik Bais -----Original Message----- From: support(a)privatelayer.com [mailto:support@privatelayer.com] Sent: woensdag 14 december 2011 10:46 To: Erik Bais Subject: [#27119] Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees Dear Valued Private Layer Customer, Our tech support department has received your message in good order and we have assigned a ticket number to your request. The ticket number assigned is: 27119. We are reviewing your ticket and will reply to it shortly. Best Regards, Private Layer INC Tech Support Department support(a)privatelayer.com

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees
by poty＠iiat.ru 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

1. Newcomers need several special (and not so special, but more "manual") procedures for contract signing, teaching, allocating, assisting first assignments, a lot more supporting, "free entrance" to RIPE meeting ... I think it reasonably costs several cents more? 2. You are right about the membership fee, but every member was once a newcomer and since then pays every year the money, according the current charging scheme. Many of "current" LIRs have already contributed a lot to community (and RIPE NCC) not only by means of fees, but by ideas, solutions... 3. The rules of allocating "then" were different than "now". The "default" block was bigger and the procedures for the distribution of allocated space were not so strictly tough. Why we should punish the LIRs now to abide the rules and best practices? ... (it's only small number of arguments, and - yes - the matter was discussed several times already) Regards, Vladislav Potapov > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Alexander Zubkov > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 9:50 AM > To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees > > On 12/13/2011 11:32 PM, Michał Margula wrote: > > W dniu 13.12.2011 20:23, LIR pisze: > >> I am new to RIPE and list, and I did not see any conversation of > that kind. > >> > >> Anyway, I find this way of calculating is not fair at all, despite > of used. > >> > >> This model does not compute real usage of resources, but penalizes > >> new entries and gives resources for free to old members. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Tonino > >> > > > > I can't agree. W got our first resources about 5 years ago. First > year > > we were "EXTRA SMALL", and then every year we are categorized > "SMALL", > > altough we requested some more resources. > > > > And does 500 euro per year really makes any difference? Really?? > Let's > > count IPv4 - you got /21 which is 1024 addresess which makes 50 cents > > (per year! about 4 cents a month!!) difference. > > > > And about fairness of that calculation - the later you get resources > > the more are they valuable, and they really are! > > > > This is absolutely correct in case of one-time payment. But membership > fee is regular and you are right - resources are valuable. And this > should be applied to all members, not to newcomers only. > > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses.

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees
by LIR 13 Dec '11

13 Dec '11

Il 13/12/2011 19:54, Rob Golding ha scritto: >> This means every one asking first block allocation after year 2008 will be >> classified SMALL, despite of his real dimensions and resources. >> >> This is quite punishing for new comers like us, and not fair at all as a >> fee computing method. > It's like flights - the later you leave it to travel-date the more expensive > they become. Yes. But you had to book 15 years before your date. Tonino

1 0

IDAQ joins an exclusive club
by Nigel Titley 30 Nov '11

30 Nov '11

I see that IDAQ has joined PrivateLayer in the exclusive club of those members who have subscribed their ticket robots to the RIPE member-discuss list. Welcome to the IDAQ-ticket robot, and congratulations on achieving sentience. We will look forward to your contributions to the discussion list with interest. Nigel (waiting in Moscow airport for my flight back to strike-hit Heathrow)

1 0

What to do
by Comunicaciones ACOTELSA 24 Nov '11

24 Nov '11

Hi all. We have detected a DoS from IP of APNIC, from China. Are there a procedure to inform APNIC or RIPE about the problem or the only way is inform to the WHOIS contact? Thanks in advance. Saludos... =========================================== Luis Ángel Lozano Aparicio Comunicaciones y Seguridad Grupo Acotel e-mail: comunicaciones(a)acotelsa.com ------------------------------------------ Tlf: 983 440274 - 902 194273 Fax:983 548220 Oficina 201 - Edificio Galileo, módulo Rojo Parque Tecnológico de Boecillo 47151 Boecillo (Valladolid) - España =========================================== Protección de Datos: ACOTELSA le informa de que los datos facilitados por Ud. y utilizados para el envío de esta comunicación serán objeto de tratamiento automatizado o no en nuestros ficheros, con la finalidad de gestionar la agenda de contactos de nuestra empresa y para el envío de comunicaciones profesionales por cualquier medio electrónico o no. Vd. podrá en cualquier momento ejercer el derecho de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición en los términos establecidos en la Ley Orgánica 15/1999. El responsable del tratamiento es ACOTELSA, con domicilio en Ronda de Poniente, 3 bajo, 28760 Tres Cantos, Madrid. Confidencialidad El contenido de esta comunicación, así como el de toda la documentación anexa, es confidencial y va dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mismo. En el supuesto de que usted no fuera el destinatario, le solicitamos que nos lo indique y no comunique su contenido a terceros, procediendo a su destrucción. Gracias. Confidenciality The content of this communication and any attached information is confidential and exclusively for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee, we ask you to notify to the sender and do not pass its content to another person, and please be sure you destroy it. Thank you.

8 8

Re: [members-discuss] What to do
by sslavov＠blizoo.bg 22 Nov '11

22 Nov '11

Contact the Persons in the WHOIS database, your UPLINK Provider AND BLOCK IP RANGE. Best regards. Stoyan > > RIPE, APNIC or any of the other RIRs only handle administrative issues > wrt the allocation and distribution of IP addresses, AS numbers etc. > They have no "power" over the network of any ISP. > > You should contact the persons in the WHOIS, and at the same time, you > should contact your upstream provider and ask them if they can see where > the DOS originates and if they can perhaps block it for you. > > Do remember that IP packets can be spoofed, the source address of the > DOS packets may say "this originated from 243.1.2.3" but perhaps it is a > completely different network that is sending you the packets - your > upstream provider might be able to pinpoint the actual source. > > Mike. > > On 22-11-11 4:41 PM, Comunicaciones ACOTELSA wrote: >> Hi all. >> >> We have detected a DoS from IP of APNIC, from China. >> >> Are there a procedure to inform APNIC or RIPE about the problem or the >> only >> way is inform to the WHOIS contact? >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> >> Saludos... >> >> =========================================== >> Luis Ángel Lozano Aparicio >> Comunicaciones y Seguridad >> Grupo Acotel >> e-mail: comunicaciones(a)acotelsa.com >> ------------------------------------------ >> Tlf: 983 440274 - 902 194273 Fax:983 548220 >> Oficina 201 - Edificio Galileo, módulo Rojo >> Parque Tecnológico de Boecillo >> 47151 Boecillo (Valladolid) - España >> =========================================== >> >> >> >> >> >> Protección de Datos: ACOTELSA le informa de que los datos facilitados >> por Ud. y utilizados para el envío de esta comunicación serán objeto de >> tratamiento automatizado o no en nuestros ficheros, con la finalidad de >> gestionar la agenda de contactos de nuestra empresa y para el envío de >> comunicaciones profesionales por cualquier medio electrónico o no. Vd. >> podrá en cualquier momento ejercer el derecho de acceso, rectificación, >> cancelación y oposición en los términos establecidos en la Ley Orgánica >> 15/1999. El responsable del tratamiento es ACOTELSA, con domicilio en >> Ronda de Poniente, 3 bajo, 28760 Tres Cantos, Madrid. >> >> Confidencialidad El contenido de esta comunicación, así como el de toda >> la documentación anexa, es confidencial y va dirigido únicamente al >> destinatario del mismo. En el supuesto de que usted no fuera el >> destinatario, le solicitamos que nos lo indique y no comunique su >> contenido a terceros, procediendo a su destrucción. Gracias. >> >> Confidenciality The content of this communication and any attached >> information is confidential and exclusively for the use of the >> addressee. If you are not the addressee, we ask you to notify to the >> sender and do not pass its content to another person, and please be sure >> you destroy it. Thank you. >> >> >> >> ---- >> If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss >> mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the >> general page: >> https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view >> >> Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From >> here, you can add or remove addresses. >> > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Update on police order of 8 November
by Brandon Butterworth 16 Nov '11

16 Nov '11

> Please keep in mind, I'm not a laywer Likewise but it appears to be totally unnecessary action that establishes precedent for other more intrusive requests later > - These punishable facts are an immediate threat to the Dutch public order. Seems quite unlikely that there will be public disorder as a result of malware, at least to the extent freezing registry entries would prevent. > o The suspects in the US investigation will transfer the control of > the relevant registrations of a couple specific IP ranges in the > public register. > o The suspects in the US investigations will alter the > relevant registration(s) of a specific set of IP ranges in the > public register, unless specifically approved by the FBI of the > US attorney's office for the Southern District of New York. Why would that matter as long as they made an evidence record of what it was at this time. There's lots of things the suspects may do during the course of an investigation, like just live their normal lives. brandon

1 0

Update on police order of 8 November
by Axel Pawlik 16 Nov '11

16 Nov '11

Dear all, In the interest of transparency, I'd like to update you on the Dutch police order issued to the RIPE NCC on 8 November 2011 to temporarily lock a registration of four IP address blocks in the RIPE Registry until 22 March 2012. As mentioned earlier, we are working on full disclosure of the background documents. You can read a copy of the police order here: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/police-order-8-november-20… We will update you if and when any other publishable materials become available. We have received independent legal advice and are in discussion with the appropriate authorities. We intend to pursue this matter further in Dutch court to establish a precedent so that we are certain of our rights regarding such orders. The RIPE NCC is committed to acting in the best interest of its membership and we will continue to inform you and the Internet community on this matter as it progresses. I'd also like to take this opportunity to clarify that we have not withdrawn, removed or reclaimed the address blocks in question. kind regards, Axel

2 2

NCC acting on registrations pursuant to "police order"?
by Sascha Luck 14 Nov '11

14 Nov '11

All, in the recent discussion on RPKI, it was stated by the NCC that it would not act on resource registrations (and, by extension, certificates and ROAs) without a valid Dutch court order. According to: http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/ripe… ther NCC has blocked changes to registered resources pursuant to "an order from Dutch police". Now, I'm not overly familiar with the Dutch legal system but in ours, a court order is different from a "police order". Considering the implications for, in particular, RPKI; could someone from the NCC confirm that this was, in fact, on foot of a court order? Alternatively, is a "police order" something equivalent, eg an order that must be followed on pain of legal sanction?` Regards, Sascha Luck

11 12

Re: [members-discuss] [#22756] Re: FW: NCC acting on registrations pursuant to "police order"?
by Sven Olaf Kamphuis 12 Nov '11

12 Nov '11

Security expert Ronald Prince of forensic firm Fox-IT across all Macworld speculated that this action may be related to the rolling up of the DNS gang. "De DNS-servers draaiden op bepaalde ip-adressen. Nu zijn die vervangen door servers van de politie zelf." "The DNS servers were running on certain IP addresses. Now those servers replaced by the police themselves." ah so-called "security expert" and well known sockpuppet of the amerifags, ronald prins, is at it again... when he's not too busy persecuting the international souvereign military order of internet knights that is anonymous, he's always to be found to make some foolish statements in the press. The rolled malware gang has four million PCs worldwide able to infect. This is done through rogue DNS servers. NO -THIS IS DONE THROUGH MICROSOFT WINDOWS-, go and arrest bill gates for selling utter crap that doesn't belong on a network in the first place, and not fixing it on purpose although code is much easier to fix than to maintain a dictionary of search strings for 'known' virus code that exploits it. Prince says that the RIPE-blocking by the Dutch police can ensure that the infected computers keep their connection. Only is it not the rogue machines, but the police servers. " And that solves the problem ... how exactly... the next virus will show up and microsoft continue keep sell crap and isn't even being blamed by this rather pro-american so-called "security" expert. i'd say, flash the god damn biosses with an advertisement that gets them to the mac store, or force install ubuntu if you're already taking over a botnet anyway :P the dutch police gets paid by dutch taxpayers to protect dutch/european interests, not those of mickeysoft or the usa, or to run after people that exploit bugs (probably purposely) not fixed by microsoft to keep their "anti virus industry" buddies in business. i'd say, this whole thing is EASILY solved by a forced update of windows, on THEIR side of the ocean, i see no need to waste further european tax money on whatever that god damn ex-colony of amsterdam wants. (and while we're at the subject, why on earth do we let them sell that crap in our stores ;) -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven(a)cb3rob.net ========================================================================= <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, support(a)privatelayer.com wrote: > Dear Valued Private Layer Customer, > > > Our tech support department has received your message in good order and we have assigned a ticket number to your request. > > The ticket number assigned is: 22756. We are reviewing your ticket and will reply to it shortly. > > > Best Regards, > > Private Layer INC > Tech Support Department > support(a)privatelayer.com >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] FW: NCC acting on registrations pursuant to "police order"?
by Erik Bais 11 Nov '11

11 Nov '11

Hi Brandon, >>> 1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as >>> may be necessary to enable its competent authorities to order or >>> similarly obtain the expeditious preservation of specified computer >>> data > >It's just preservation, it doesn't say prevention of new data creation (you'd have to preserve that too) >It would just be a limitation of the RIPE systems if they have to lock an account to ensure retention of data, they could implement other means to provide a preserved data trail while leaving the account active. Your statement might be true and is also the problem with international ratification of Treaties and the underlying national implementation into the law. In this case, the question would be, what was the actual request from the Police, in order to get some more detail on it. If a preservation of information would have been enough or if a freeze of an account would be required. An online copy of the actual request from the KLPD in that case would be nice, where the personal details can be removed with black marker to protect the innocence etc. (blah blah .. ;-) ) I can only imagine that the operational system of RIPE would not have been designed to comply with anything like a Data retention act in mind. (Off-topic: Which in the Netherlands is still on 12 months btw.) So was the locking of the accounts towards the RIPE systems or freezing of the subnets, was it about the LIR portal, the associated maintainer passwd, or something else, like preventing them from doing changes to rev. dns. ? Or was it about avoiding transfers or changes in the Whois DB ? And instead of dealing with all the fuzz of the above, RIPE NCC might have taken the route of ... disable the accounts and wait ... Which is a perfectly good action imho as it would freeze the evidence present and the people involved would only notice it when they would actually need to make changes. Questions .. questions .. And only a few that know. Erik

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] FW: NCC acting on registrations pursuant to "police order"?
by Brandon Butterworth 11 Nov '11

11 Nov '11

>> 1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as >> may be necessary to enable its competent authorities to order or >> similarly obtain the expeditious preservation of specified computer >> data It's just preservation, it doesn't say prevention of new data creation (you'd have to preserve that too) It would just be a limitation of the RIPE systems if they have to lock an account to ensure retention of data, they could implement other means to provide a preserved data trail while leaving the account active. brandon

1 0

Some thoughts I was not able to say at GM-2011
by poty＠iiat.ru 09 Nov '11

09 Nov '11

Hello everybody, At the beginning I'd like to apologize for my poor spoken English which prevented me to clearly state my opinion at GM. It is not related to any problems with EB preventing me to do that! Thank them for the opportunity given and sorry for emotional expressions. I hope that something from my speech at GM was understandable, but to make my position more consistent I'll sum the thoughts I wanted to express. My main concern is about openness of the decisions if we speak about money, not technical and police things. All the three interrelated finance documents (The Activity Plan, which defines the expenses and is the base for the Budget, which defines the balance between the expenses and incomes, and the Charging Scheme as a result of defined incomes to cover expenses) were compiled inside of the RIPE NCC and were not clear to me and (according to several posts here in the list) to several other members. For example, who exactly gave the feedbacks for initial RIPE NCC Proposed New Charging Scheme 2012? The members-discuss list was pristine innocent about this "the current Charging Scheme model is complex and makes it difficult for individual members to easily determine their own fees" complains. Private conversations? Maybe... But it shouldn't in my opinion be private as soon as it relates to all the members! The new published EB email which enables another private channel between a person and the EB is a bad thing according to the logic of my sentences above. The main and the only "panel" for discussion should be either the members-discuss list or new "finance-discuss?" list, opened maybe only to members (I don't mind if it is completely opened). As stated by Nigel Titley, the Chairman of the Executive Board, at the GM the things are going to change to the next GM. The lack of discussions about the documents before GM-2011 was in my opinion related to usefulness and the source reasons in the documents. Speaking about the Activity Plan - we (members) asked the EB about adding cost to each activity in 2007-2008. Without the numbers the Activity Plan is a way of stating things, but not evaluating effectiveness of the services. Discuss "marked on stone" statements is not very rewarding venture. Thankfully the numbers will appear soon in the document. Second point in the matter - the procedure of changing the Activity Plan - it is not exist now and should be invented. There was already the suggestions about it in the list I won't going to repeat them now. Speaking about the Charging Scheme... I'm not against the increase of the amount to pay, I'm against of the misty motivations for the rise and some predictability of expenses. There should be clearly defined "resource classes" included in each membership category, and clearer definition of fairness. (I'd also decide on the consulting about the taxation issue, but it in unrelated thing up to now.) I can give many examples of that but I'm trying to make this message as short as possible. For example, I don't agree with the "free" IPv6: the LIRs would pay for the blocks indirectly, through IPv4 counting, anyway - whom we are going to trick then? The last thing which is the most important to me - the services of the RIPE NCC above the main baseline of "providing unique blocks of numbers and register them on the DB". It is related to the Activity Plan certainly, but I'd like to mention them from different point of view - in term of including some of them in the Charging Scheme. I'm repeating - I'm not against developed services "made in RIPE NCC", think that many of them (not all though) are very useful, but why some of them deserves to be mentioned in the Charging Scheme, the others - not? Why not related to the main activity things should be mentioned in invoices at all? I think of it like "tie in sale", not very pleasant thought of course. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Voting @ GM 2011
by Brandon Butterworth 07 Nov '11

07 Nov '11

> The alternative, of course, is to continue with the old charging scheme > as we have used up until now but of course we put together the new > charging scheme as a response to the membership after complaints about > the old one, so I wouldn't expect that to be popular. There will always be some who think the price is too damn high and they should pay less (and in this case others should pay more instead). When you change it you'll make some happier, some will think it's still to high and you'll add others who now think it's too high. The latter two will continue to be heard. Overall the RIPE fees aren't that large and for big ISP are just noise. If there is change that's a sign where to make it. brandon

1 0

activity plan suggestion
by Sergey Myasoedov 07 Nov '11

07 Nov '11

Hello, there is a proposal for RIPE NCC and Executive board. As there is a criticism of RIPE NCC Activity plan and voting at the GM for the whole plan, I would like to propose to split the Activity plan into several statements and vote for each item of the plan separately. The voting can be done by show of hands directly at the GM. Thank you. -- Kind regards, Sergey

12 15