- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Spam from Cyprian Nica / IP Broker Limited (Re: Inquiry regarding availability for subnet x.x.x.0 - y.y.y.255
by Nick Hilliard 10 Nov '16

10 Nov '16

I've received several copies of the template email below about several different address ranges, all sent to email addresses culled from the RIPE Database. They all appear to originate from Cyprian Nica / IP Broker Ltd. In order to be listed as an IP broker on the RIPE web site, it is necessary to sign the "Recognised IPv4 Transfer Broker Agreement". This includes the following text: > The Broker shall adhere to the relevant RIPE Policies and RIPE NCC > procedural documents, [...] The RIPE Database T&Cs include the following text: > Users may not use the RIPE Database or the data contained therein for > advertising, direct marketing, marketing research or similar purposes. Could the RIPE NCC kindly confirm whether or not spamming contact email address gleaned from the RIPE DB is a violation of the Recognised IPv4 Transfer Broker Agreement? If this isn't a violation, could the Board consider specifically adding an anti-spamming term into the IP Broker T&Cs listing? Nick Ciprian Nica wrote: > Dear Sirs, > > My name is Ciprian Nica and I'm the CEO of IP Broker Ltd, one of the > first IPv4 Address brokers in the RIPE region. I am contacting you > regarding the block of 256 IPv4 addresses (from x.x.x.0 to > 'y.y.y.255') which according to our data seems to be not in use as > they are not announced in the global BGP table. > > If you no longer need these IP addresses then it is a good moment to > sell them. The global IPv6 deployment rate is around 15% while in USA > is around 30% so in a couple of years IPv4 might become worthless > again. > > Of course that besides the subnet mentioned above there might be some > other blocks that you might not need. Please let us know all the > blocks of IP addresses that you no longer need and we will do our > best to sell them in a fast and secure way. > > Thank you, > Ciprian Nica > CEO > IP Broker Limited > t: +44 20 339 339 91 >

26 36

Re: [members-discuss] Spam from Cyprian Nica / IP Broker Limited (Re: Inquiry regarding availability for subnet x.x.x.0 - y.y.y.255
by Marek Isalski 11 Oct '16

11 Oct '16

> On 11 Oct 2016, at 08:18, Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> wrote: > Attacking my company for not filing some document on a public list is affecting my image and I am considering suing you if you don't retract your words. Nica, I cannot remove something published by Companies House in the Gazette: it is a public record required by UK law, specifically so that potential customers and suppliers can perform due diligence checks upon companies. Please clarify which of my words you want me to retract? Marek Isalski Technical Director, Faelix Limited, https://faelix.net/

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] [#1171078] Spam from Cyprian Nica / IP Broker Limited (Re: Inquiry regarding availability for subnet x.x.x.0 - y.y.y.255
by support＠psychz.net 10 Oct '16

10 Oct '16

Hello, Can you excluded psychz.net support off this conversation? I don't see how we should be concerned about these emails unless it pertains to a technical problem pending resolution. -- Luis Gomez Technical support

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Executive Board Resolution on Legacy Internet Resource Holders
by Hank Nussbacher 04 Oct '16

04 Oct '16

I guess there is no limit to how far people will go to game the system. Since there are about 14,000 LIRs out there that have very little clue about RIPE history and can get the wrong impression about legacy IP address holders, I'd like to speak as a Legacy LIR and one who has paid RIPE membership fees since 1995 (actually the first paying member - see attached): Looking back at the minutes of the meetings from 1994+1995: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/1994/minutes-from-rip… https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/1995 one can see organizations like Aconet (Austria), Cesnet (Czech Republic), DFN (Germany), Heanet (Ireland), and over 20 more NRENs - all of which have primarily legacy IP address space, were the founders of RIPE and have paid and will continue to pay RIPE membership fees. Having Legacy IP address space does not mean you are automatically a scum-bag. Quite the opposite and Nigel's email just made be pissed off. Acquiring small bits of legacy IP space to bypass LIR membership dues and to then be entitled to get more IP address space goes totally against the spirit of RIPE and I totally approve the Executive Board's decision and would recommend even further sanctions against those that have done it. Regards, Hank Nussbacher IUCC > Dear Colleagues, > > The Executive Board has instructed the RIPE NCC to temporarily restrict > the ability of Legacy Internet Resource Holders to become RIPE NCC > members or open LIR accounts in their capacity as Legacy Internet > Resource Holders. This decision was taken at last week's Executive Board > meeting in Amsterdam. > > Since the policy “RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resources” was > implemented in 2014, the RIPE NCC has waived the EUR 2,000 sign-up fee > for Legacy Internet Resource Holders who choose to enter into a > contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC. It now seems that some > entities have started obtaining very small blocks of legacy IPv4 > resources (in some cases as little as a /29) and using this to open an > LIR account and obtain an IPv4 /22 allocation without having to pay the > sign-up fee. > > The board feels that this is against the spirit in which this fee was > waived and gives an unfair advantage to these entities. Removing this > cost barrier could also result in faster depletion of the IPv4 pool that > the RIPE community has reserved for newcomers. We will therefore be > adding this to the agenda of the upcoming General Meeting (GM) that will > take place on 26 October. We will also put forward a resolution for the > membership to vote on to address this problem. As the board anticipates > an increase in these kinds of requests ahead of the GM, we felt it was > necessary to apply this temporary restriction until a proper solution > can be applied. > > It is important to note that despite this temporary restriction, Legacy > Internet Resource Holders may continue to register their resources: > - By becoming a RIPE NCC member (without using their capacity as Legacy > Internet Resource Holders to receive the sign-up fee waiver) > - Under an existing LIR account > - Through a sponsoring LIR > - By entering into a direct agreement with the RIPE NCC

16 35

Re: [members-discuss] Executive Board Resolution on Legacy Internet Resource Holders
by Nigel Titley 28 Sep '16

28 Sep '16

Nick On 27/09/16 17:16, Nick Hilliard wrote: > Nigel Titley wrote: >> Well, most of the time you don't have to "convince the RIPE NCC board to >> implement it". The only time that the board would refuse to implement >> policy (and this has never happened to my knowledge) > > <ahem> ASN fees. That, I believe, was put to a membership vote. >> would be if such a >> policy were to impact the commercial viability of the NCC, and then we >> have a fiduciary duty to not allow it. Otherwise... go ahead. > > I'd suggest that a landgrab like this would attract law suits. I think you might be right, and I'd expect that it would be flagged up by legal at the Impact Analysis stage of the process. Nigel

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Tim Armstrong 27 Sep '16

27 Sep '16

Continuing this conversation beyond the four day mark costs us all time, which also costs money, the real question is if you think your time spent on this matter is worth more than the ~400 EUR / year you stand to save should you win the argument. Because I'm pretty sure winning this argument is worth way more to those with large IPv4 blocks that you want too slap a not so insignificant additional fee on, and for what, being an older company? If you want to free up more IPv4 space for "the greater good" perhaps try looking at ways to reclaim space from the real bad guys, people who abused the loopholes in the last /8 policy to claim way more than a single /22. Which frankly should be treated with much more animosity than the legacy resource holders who actually brought the internet to the RIPE area before ripe even existed. Frankly, we should all be thanking legacy holders, because with out them, none of us would have jobs. -Tim On 26 Sep 2016 9:26 p.m., "Radu-Adrian Feurdean" < ripe-ncc(a)radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2016, at 23:24, Simon Lockhart wrote: > STOP TRYING TO COME UP WITH WAYS TO RECLAIM IPv4 ADDRESSES. IT WILL > ACHIEVE NOTHING. I don't find it as much about reclaiming as it is about making things the same for everybody: IPv4 = cost (even if it's only symbolic). Right now IPv4 = profit. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN ---- 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/ Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Prager-IT e.U. 26 Sep '16

26 Sep '16

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Daniel Pearson <daniel(a)privatesystems.net> wrote: > Sorry to say but I really don't think you are seeing the picture. > > I fail to see how dropping yearly fee's, increasing 'setup' fee's will > accomplish anything. Perhaps spend some time and do the math out and put an > actual outline with some numbers behind it and then match that upto the > required budget to operate RIPE. > Charging every member for the amount of resources they are using will bring back some fairness in an inherently unfair system. > > You specifically say this: > > "After the membership has approved the new plan via a majority vote there > will be an excess in money available due to the higher setup fee. The price > will be determined by availability." > > RIPE having an 'excess' of money, will simply mean that money is returned > to its members. The price is not determined by availability of resources, > it is determined primarily by the operating costs of RIPE its self. > Under my plan the RIPE NCC will use that excess money to buy back resources from RIPE NCC members who are willing to give back some of their resources. The amount of resources members are willing to give back will influence the price the RIPE NCC would be willing to pay from the excess funds. > > Specifically lets look at the Articles of Association that govern RIPE. > > Article 3 – The Association: Objective > > The objective of the Association is to perform activities for the benefit > of the Members, primarily activities that the Members need to organize as a > group. This object can be sub-divided into the following activities: > > - Registration Activities related to the role of the Association as > Regional Internet Registry; > - Co-ordination Activities, including the support of the stable > operation of the Internet; > - Administration Activities, including all regular reports and > administrative support as well as all other general administrative tasks > which cannot be attributed to a specific activity; > - New Activities, including all activities which are necessary to > react to the rapidly changing world of the Internet; and to do all that is > connected therewith or may be conducive thereto, all this in the widest > sense of the word. *Making profit is not an object of the Association.* > > > So if RIPE cannot make a profit, then it is impossible for it to set fee's > so high that would make any impact and thus limits the whole game to a > 21,000,000 million EUR bubble, which is TINY compared to some of the power > house IT companies budgets. > If the RIPE NCC wants to protect the remaining resources the setup fee needs to be increased either way, it is as simple as that. As I already said the excess amount will be used to buy back resources from members that are willing to give them back. Buying back resources instead of dispersing excess money will benefit future LIRs as they may still be able to get a small amount of IPv4 resources and make the entire system more efficient if you provide LIRs with unused resources an easy way to give back some resources and provide them with a reimbursement. Kind Regards, Stefan Prager -- Prager-IT e.U. VAT Number: ATU69773505 Austrian Company Register: 438885w Skype: Prager-IT contact(a)prager-it.com +43 680 300 99 80 +44 20 376 962 11

9 12

Re: [members-discuss] [cs] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Andrew de la Haye 26 Sep '16

26 Sep '16

Dear Tim, These allocations were obtained through either the RIPE transfer policy or the mergers and acquisitions procedure that was in effect at the time of issuing. Both the RIPE policy and our own procedures have had some revisions over time. It’s still too early to say what effect recent changes have had, but we are monitoring this closely. Kind regards Andrew de la Haye Chief Operations Officer RIPE NCC > Dear Andrew, > > Am I correct in assuming that all of those with more than one /22 from > 185/8 did so via the various loopholes that have been closed over the > last > year? > > -Tim On 23 Sep 2016 8:43 a.m., "Andrew de la Haye" <andrewh at ripe.net> wrote: >> Dear Arash, >> >> We just wanted to confirm that there are currently 6,203 LIRs that >> hold a >> /22 allocation from 185/8 with no other IPv4 address space. Out of >> these, >> 444 LIRs have more than one /22 from this block, and together they >> hold >> 1,423 /22s. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Andrew de la Haye >> Chief Operations Officer >> RIPE NCC

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model (fwd)
by Carlos Friacas 23 Sep '16

23 Sep '16

> Coming back to the points of RIPE NCC being non-profit, it could also start > spending more money to improve the services that it provides. The "About us" > page tells us that RIPE NCC works with Internet Governance and External > Relations and Outreach. RIPE NCC could sure use more money and resources to > engage further with regards to these topics. For example, RIPE NCC engages > in Roundtable Meetings for governments, Forgot to mention that this outreach should have included strong messages so governments could be aware they should grab enough IPv4 addresses to satisfy their needs, in order to become truly independent from their current (or future) IP service providers. Some governments only understood they needed to "own" their share of IPv4 space when it was too late, and only got small crumbs... :-( In general, public administration procedures lead to periodic tenders, and service providers (ISPs) are likely to change, and renumbering processes become unavoidable if you don't "own" PI space, Legacy space our your own PA space... ;-) > regulators and law enforcement > agencies and could use these forums to educate these bodies about the > importance of safeguarding an open and neutral internet without any > artificial hurdles such as zero-rating. blocking of content etc. Regards, Carlos (pt.rccn)

7 12

Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Nigel Titley 17 Sep '16

17 Sep '16

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC Executive Board asks that the membership consider the charging scheme model that the RIPE NCC currently uses. The current "one LIR-one fee" charging scheme was first used for the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2013. This scheme was introduced following the formation of a Charging Scheme Task Force in 2011, a discussion of the issue on the Members Discuss mailing list, and the presentation of three types of charging schemes for the members to vote on at the September 2012 General Meeting (GM). The three types of charging scheme presented to the members in 2012 can be seen at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/september-2012/docume… Since the approval of the "one LIR-one fee" charging scheme, annual fees per LIR have reduced from EUR 1,800 per annum to 1,400 per annum. Since 2015, members can also vote to approve the redistribution to the members of any surplus accumulated by the RIPE NCC in a year. The Executive Board believes that the current charging scheme model still meets the three broad criteria that the Charging Scheme Task Force recommended for the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme: - The Charging Scheme model that is decided upon should be applicable for several years. - There should be stable fees per member. - A small number of members should not pay most of the membership fees. However, the Executive Board recognises that the membership has grown considerably since the current charging scheme model was introduced and that some members now feel that the current model is not a equitable way to pay for the RIPE NCC's activities. This is evident from emails the board has received, from comments received in the RIPE NCC Survey 2016, and from discussions among the members on RIPE working group mailing lists. The Executive Board therefore proposes to discuss this issue at the upcoming GM. We ask that prior to the GM the membership discusses this issue on <members-discuss(a)ripe.net>, keeping the discussion focused on whether or not the "one LIR-one fee" model is the best model for RIPE NCC charging schemes and, if not, what the alternative should be. The Board has been contacted with a question regarding how a member could propose a topic to be voted on at a General Meeting. I would like to confirm that the board is always open to proposals regarding agenda items for the General Meeting. For the full background on how the agenda for a RIPE NCC General Meeting is set, please refer to articles 15.3 - 15.6 of the Articles of Association; as provided at the end of this email. Finally, I encourage all members to register to participate in the upcoming GM to ensure that the decisions reached reflect the overall wishes of the membership as far as possible. All details about the GM, including how to register, are available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/october-2016 Best regards Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman RIPE NCC Articles of Association https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-602 === 15.3 The agenda for the Annual Meeting shall include the following subjects: a. the adoption of the Financial Report; b. the discharge of the Executive Board with regard to its actions as they appear from the Annual Report; c. the filling of any vacancies in the Executive Board. 15.4 The following subjects shall be placed on the agenda for the Annual Meeting or on the agenda for another General Meeting to be held in the same calendar year: a. a discussion of the draft Activity Plan and draft budget after a presentation by the Executive Board; b. the adoption of the Charging Scheme with respect to the coming financial year upon proposal of the Executive Board; c. a discussion of the policy and the quality of services (to be) rendered by the Association. 15.5 If applicable, the agenda for the Annual Meeting or another General Meeting shall also include the following subjects: a. the extension of the period within which the Executive Board shall submit the Annual Report (as referred to in paragraph 14.2), which shall also constitute an extension of the period within which the Annual Meeting - at which the Annual Report is to be submitted - shall be held; b. the filling of any vacancies in the Executive Board; upon proposal by the Executive Board: adoption of amendments to the Standard Service Agreement; c. upon proposal by the Executive Board: approval of new arbiters and/or dismissal of current arbiters and/or adoption of amendments to the arbitration procedure; e. other proposals and/or discussion points put forward by the Executive Board or (a group of) Members of the Association (pursuant to paragraph 15.6) and announced in the convocation for the Meeting. 15.6 On the written application of a group of Members who are jointly entitled to cast at least two percent (2%) of the total number of possible votes, other subjects will be added to the agenda. Such an application, accompanied by the verbatim text of the resolutions proposed by the said Members, shall have to be sent to the Executive Board at least two weeks before the Meeting. The Executive Board shall immediately send the verbatim text of the resolutions proposed by the said Members to all the Members of the Association.

25 37