- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

НА: Marketing? Really?
by Vladislav Potapov 22 Oct '13

22 Oct '13

Me too. And many "outgoing" activities like RIPE meetings an so... too. I'm fully satisfied with the latest finance documents. At least they have the information I asked. Vladislav Potapov ru.iiat -----Исходное сообщение----- От: "Jānis Jaunošāns" <jj(a)streamnetworks.lv> Отправлено: ‎22.‎10.‎2013 21:46 Кому: "members-discuss(a)ripe.net" <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> Тема: Re: [members-discuss] Marketing? Really? I like atlas and labs :( On 10/22/13 7:49 PM, Daniel Stolpe wrote: > On Tue, 22 Oct 2013, Sander Steffann wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I just noticed this on the NCC website: >> http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/jobs/current-openings/marketing-and-pr… >> >>> From that page: " This is a high profile role within the organisation [...] to develop a high-level marketing, branding and PR strategy for all services." >> and "General Duties: [...] Write powerful and engaging promotional content for the organisation?s products and services [...]" >> >> It really surprises me that the NCC, being a membership organisation, needs someone for marketing its products and services... >> >> I hope I am just misunderstanding this :-) > Hi Sander, > > Well, you know, it doesn't surprise me that much, considering the > employees talking about the NCC as a company while it in many ways is > everything but a company. I think it has many similarities with a > government entity. People do a lot of divese things and nobody is > responsible for the financies. (Axel just goes to Nigel and says "I need > 20 millinon euros next year, and then the board suggest a membership fee > that will cover the expenses and we are done). > > According to the activity plan, about 30ish people work with the core > business: registry services. And about 100 do other stuff. Of course there > has to be some infrastructure around but I still don't get what all of > them are doing. > > I would be very happy to see a document stating what the NCC are supposed > to do. And not do. > > Atlas, and labs and "no name" services are things I could do without. For > example > > Cheers, > > Daniel > > _________________________________________________________________________________ > Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe(a)resilans.se > Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ > Box 13 054 556741-1193 > 103 02 Stockholm > > > ---- > 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. -- Tālrunis: +371 67788888 ---- 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.

4 3

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] The Future of the RIPE Database Proxy Service
by Nick Hilliard 08 Apr '13

08 Apr '13

I can't see a compelling reason to make it into a member-only service, and the existing organisations who use the service seem to gain some value from it, so discontinuing it probably isn't in the best interest of the RIPE NCC's core purpose of being a RIR. As there are only 4 users of the service, there seems little point in charging. I'd be happy to see this turned into a free but contract-based service. Nick On 05/03/2013 10:20, Axel Pawlik wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > Following the discussion about the RIPE Database Proxy Service, we have > investigated several options for the future of the service. I'd like to > first give you an overview of the issue at hand. A detailed analysis is > provided below that for those of you who would like to see the finer details. > > We are now asking for feedback on this issue from the membership. No > actions will be taken regarding the service until an appropriate way > forward has been indicated by the membership. > > The aim of the RIPE NCC is to keep the registry open and accessible to > everyone at all times, just as it always has been. The options are intended > to deal with the potential for republishing and possible abuse arising out > of that republishing, which the RIPE NCC believes is the core issue at hand. > > None of the options we investigated would result in any reduced access to > RIPE Database data. > > Although they can be carried out in a number of ways, there are three basic > options as we see it: > - Make it a members-only service > - A contractual service (free or paid) > - Discontinue the service > > Over the next six-week period, ending 15 April 2013, we would like to > invite the membership to discuss and provide input on their preferred way > forward. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will summarise the discussion and > propose a way forward at the RIPE NCC Services Working Group. If a > resolution from members is required, it will take place at the General > Meeting. In the meantime, the RIPE NCC will continue to offer the RIPE > Database Proxy Service free of charge. However, no new contracts for this > service will be issued until its status has been resolved. > > We therefore urge you to put forward your opinions and preference on how we > can best move forward with the RIPE Database Proxy Service by emailing > <members-discuss(a)ripe.net>. > > Best regards, > > Axel Pawlik > Managing Director > RIPE NCC > > > ============================ > DETAILED ANALYSIS > ============================ > > The Options > ----------- > Option 1 - The RIPE Database Proxy Service becomes a member-only service > > Option 2a - The RIPE Database Proxy Service remains a free contractual > service (this is the current situation) > Option 2b - The RIPE Database Proxy Service becomes a paid contractual service > > Option 3a - Discontinue the RIPE Database Proxy Service (the RIPE NCC is > the sole official provider of the RIPE Database web-interface) and retain > the query limits > Option 3b - Discontinue the RIPE Database Proxy Service and remove the > query limits > Option 3c - Discontinue the RIPE Database Proxy Service and change the > default RIPE Database query not to show any personal data, and allow > personal data to be returned only when a special query flag with limits is > used. > > The RIPE NCC is able to facilitate any of the options presented here. > However, the RIPE NCC Executive Board believes that transitioning the RIPE > Database Proxy Service to a member service is most closely in line with the > way other contractual services have been handled. In addition, > incorporating the service into the membership would minimise costs while > continuing the service. > > General Legal Analysis > ---------------------- > As noted in the RIPE NCC Data Protection Report, the provision of unlimited > access to the RIPE Database could lead to abuse of the personal data in the > RIPE Database. In the Acceptable Use Policy, the RIPE NCC clearly defines > access limits to the personal data in the RIPE Database. Users exceeding > these limits have their access to further personal data blocked for a > period of time. > > The AUP also takes into account queries made to the RIPE Database through > web interfaces hosted by third parties (proxies). The RIPE NCC, through the > proxy service, gives the authority to third parties to provide access to > the RIPE Database through a web interface they operate. Currently, queries > through the proxy service are subject to higher query limits because such > interfaces are intended to be used by more than one user. Queries from a > proxy will be seen as queries from individual IP addresses and individual > query limits for personal data apply. > > The RIPE Data Protection Report: > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/legal/ripe-ncc-data-protection-report > > Acceptable Use Policy: > http://www.ripe.net/data-tools/support/documentation/aup > > Options 1 and 2 - Legal Analysis > -------------------------------- > There is little difference from a legal point of view whether the proxy > service is made available only to members or is a contractual service > available to anyone. > > A membership agreement has different rights and obligations and strengthens > the legal relationship between the RIPE NCC and the other party. > > The RIPE Database Terms and Conditions would also need to be updated to > include obligations for RIPE Database Proxy service contract holders. > > Option 3 - Legal Analysis > ------------------------- > There are no legal implications for option 3a. > > For option 3b, the query limits were put in place to prevent/impede the > harvesting and abuse of personal information in the RIPE Database. The Data > Protection Task Force (DPTF) considered this an effective and appropriate > part of the RIPE NCC's due diligence. Almost five years after the > implementation of this measure, the RIPE community could reassess the > effectiveness and proportionality of having query limits. If the measure is > deemed to be ineffective and disproportionate, the RIPE NCC could remove > query limits. > > Option 3c offers the best data protection from a legal perspective. This > option would limit direct personal data exposure while retaining the query > limit. However, from a functionality perspective, this might not be wanted. > > Option 1 - Administrative and Technical Analysis > ------------------------------------------------ > This option would have little administrative impact. Administrative > processes are already in place, including a proxy agreement for members. > Signing up for the service could in the future be integrated in the LIR > Portal, removing any need for manual processing of requests. The RIPE NCC > website and publications would need to be updated. All customers would need > to be informed. > > Option 2 - Administrative and Technical Analysis > ------------------------------------------------ > This option would involve more administrative overhead for the RIPE NCC. > The proxy service contract holder list would need to be managed manually, > or software would need to be developed for this purpose. All contract > holders would need to be informed and new agreements would need to be drawn > up and sent to the users. The RIPE NCC website and publications would need > to be updated. If the service remains free, no further administrative work > would be needed. > > Option 3 - Administrative and Technical Analysis > ------------------------------------------------ > This option would involve the least amount of work for the RIPE NCC. There > would be a small amount of temporary administrative work, including > contacting customers to inform them of the action and removing references > to the service from the website and publications. > > General Financial Analysis > -------------------------- > Generally speaking, the financial impact is minimal. The total costs and > the additional revenue is low in all scenarios. The cost to maintain the > service from a technical perspective are low, although it adds complexity > to the overall RIPE Database software and requires some level of additional > maintenance. It is difficult to quantify this indirect cost, but it is > contrary to RIPE NCC efforts to clean up legacy software and complexity. > > The additional revenue resulting from option 1 would, given the current > number of active users of the service, be in the range of 5-10 kEUR per > annum (there are currently four users). > > For option 2b, if the fee was to cover the costs of the service including > administration and other related overheads, with there being so few users > the fee would probably be higher than the current membership fee. > > In the other scenarios, the additional revenue is irrelevant. > > Your Feedback > ------------- > Again, we need your input and ask that you discuss this service and make > your opinion known. You can give your feedback by mailing > <members-discuss(a)ripe.net>. >

9 11

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] The Future of the RIPE Database Proxy Service
by Sander Steffann 14 Mar '13

14 Mar '13

Hi, >> To give an example: one of them is at >> http://www.geektools.com/whois.php. > > And I'm so glad to be (as a paying RIPE member, and as an ICANN accredited > domain registrar running whois servers) funding their business model of > providing a "service" with adsense plastered all over the page(s) querying > "my" databases ... I am sorry, it seems you have looked at a different site. Unless you count one ad at the bottom of the page as 'adsense plastered all over the page(s)'. Let's keep the FUD out of this discussion, shall we? Sander

4 3

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] The Future of the RIPE Database Proxy Service
by Brandon Butterworth 14 Mar '13

14 Mar '13

> Nick has summarised this well, and I fall into the free-but-contract camp. Likewise, I did reply when he posted but the moderator chose to reject it brandon

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] The Future of the RIPE Database Proxy Service
by Sander Steffann 11 Mar '13

11 Mar '13

Hi, > Time to drop something which is only used by 4 people It is not only used by 4 people, it's used by 4 *services*. Basically the proxy service is the feature that a few services (those 4) can add a field to the request that specifies that they query the database on behalf of an end-user and they provide that end-user's IP address in the request so that the RIPE Whois server can apply rate limits to that end-user. To give an example: one of them is at http://www.geektools.com/whois.php. > some of whom aren't even members The RIPE NCC has a responsibility for all internet users, not only its own members... > It's already bad enough with a-n-other-supplier going down your ripe AS > membership list trying to flog cr@p to your clients, when said supplier is > an LIR, having every nut on the planet doing so is going to get very very > very tiresome and simply lead to people not putting anything in the RIPE-DB > in the first place (as most have already decided) The whole point of providing the on-behalf-of parameter in the query is to be able to avoid people harvesting the RIPE DB by applying rate limits... The only 'risk' is that the service providers would send in queries with fake client addresses to bypass the rate limits. That is the reason why people suggest letting them sign a contract. And since there are only a few users it's easy to kick them off when they would abuse the proxy feature. So removing the proxy feature (remember: just one query option to facilitate rate limiting) doesn't make any difference for what you describe... Cheers, Sander

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] The Future of the RIPE Database Proxy Service
by Nick Hilliard 11 Mar '13

11 Mar '13

On 11/03/2013 20:57, Rob Golding wrote: > Time to drop something which is only used by 4 people - some of whom aren't > even members I'm not clear how dropping the ripe proxy service would stop the sales trawling you described. Nick

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] The Future of the RIPE Database Proxy Service
by Sascha Lenz 10 Mar '13

10 Mar '13

Hi all, > Dear colleagues, > > Following the discussion about the RIPE Database Proxy Service, we have investigated several options for the future of the service. I'd like to first give you an overview of the issue at hand. A detailed analysis is provided below that for those of you who would like to see the finer details. [...] well i still don't see much need for the service i must admit, but if some people want to use it... I actually would prefer making this a member-only or paid-service, but after re-reading some parts of the discussion about the issue before, i guess the free-but-contract-based approach might be the most intelligent choice without upsetting those who use it and it seems to be without negative impact for the rest of the members. ==> Option 2a -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect

1 0

RIPE Database Proxy Service
by fg＠numlog.fr 09 Mar '13

09 Mar '13

Hello, As the proxy service benefits of higher query limits, restricting the use of this service to members only, looks the minimum limitation in order to fight against personal data mining. But my preference goes to option 3c : > Option 3c - Discontinue the RIPE Database Proxy Service and change the > default RIPE Database query not to show any personal data, and allow > personal data to be returned only when a special query flag with > limits is used. IMHO, it's not that frequent to need to access to personal data, except for spammers, so this solution is the better. Best regards, Francis

1 0

Filtering issue in 128/8
by Bertrand MAUJEAN 08 Feb '13

08 Feb '13

Hello, We received an allocation starting at 128.127.128.0 a few years ago. It's quite pleasant for mnemonic reasons, but we face serious outgoing SMTP problems toward live.com services, since the day we installed the first SMTP server with one of theses addresses. Microsoft publish some recommendations (http://mail.live.com/mail/policies.aspx) but even following theses recommendations carefully we cannot solve our problem. We tried to contact MS directly, without any success (postmaster, hostmaster, contact in routing database, peering contact...), but they seems pretty autistic (either no answer or pointing us the already known web site). Tests have been conducted using IP address that did not send any packet for several years (cannot be listed as spammer). Problem is only for our block in 128/8 (we have a lot of other). This block is not as European as other (ARIN administered), but RIPE allocated to us from it. Does someone have similar issues with 128/8 ? Does someone know the good contact ? Thank you, Regards, Bertrand

4 3

Re: [members-discuss] Filtering issue in 128/8
by Francois.Claire＠ses.com 07 Feb '13

07 Feb '13

Hi Bertrand, I might have a solution for you. Just send me a PM for details. Francois. ----- Original Message ----- From: Bertrand MAUJEAN [bmaujean(a)rmi.fr] Sent: 02/06/2013 05:05 PM GMT To: "members-discuss(a)ripe.net" <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> Subject: [members-discuss] Filtering issue in 128/8 Hello, We received an allocation starting at 128.127.128.0 a few years ago. It's quite pleasant for mnemonic reasons, but we face serious outgoing SMTP problems toward live.com services, since the day we installed the first SMTP server with one of theses addresses. Microsoft publish some recommendations (http://mail.live.com/mail/policies.aspx) but even following theses recommendations carefully we cannot solve our problem. We tried to contact MS directly, without any success (postmaster, hostmaster, contact in routing database, peering contact...), but they seems pretty autistic (either no answer or pointing us the already known web site). Tests have been conducted using IP address that did not send any packet for several years (cannot be listed as spammer). Problem is only for our block in 128/8 (we have a lot of other). This block is not as European as other (ARIN administered), but RIPE allocated to us from it. Does someone have similar issues with 128/8 ? Does someone know the good contact ? Thank you, Regards, Bertrand ---- 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