- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

ISP IRC channel
by Lu Heng 11 May '12

11 May '12

Hi Does anybody know any commom ISP tech channel that my tech guy can join and discuss(abuse, networking quality etc) -- -- 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.

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] [rt.smartbunker.net #1622] AutoReply: Re: amendment proposal for the Article of association
by James Blessing 28 Mar '12

28 Mar '12

On 28/03/2012 11:49, SmartBunker Ops via RT wrote: > > > Thank you for you're email. > > There is no need to reply to this message right now. Your ticket has been > assigned an ID of [rt.smartbunker.net #1622]. Please include this string > in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. Please someone fix this before Nigel starts writing poetry... J -- James Blessing +44 7989 039 476 Strategic Relations Manager, EMEA Limelight Networks

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] amendment proposal for the Article of association
by poty＠iiat.ru 28 Mar '12

28 Mar '12

Hello, My point of view - the idea behind Sergey's suggestion is clear - give more power to the active part of the membership. I support this idea, because it solves two important things: 1. The "additional" topics for the GM agenda are not decided by some private conversations to the EB, even if there is a way to get in touch with Nigel or someone else from the EB. Why should there be difference in the procedure of adding a topic in case of "one person ask EB to add this" or "you should have to have 180 people writing the petition to the EB to be able to add the topic directly"? The transparency of the whole procedure will increase when we lower the 2% threshold. As an example of this I can say about RPKI voting on the last GM - "someone" decided - every members have to abide. There was no 2% discussions, nor transparency about who and with what authority added this topic to the agenda. 2. There is no way to influence the agenda after it is published - just no time for this, according to the AoA. This is what happened on the last GM, where most of the members presented were asking for some changes/additions and it was impossible to do that, so the GM was like a farce, where everybody plays their roles knowing the absurd situation. Relating proxy voting and hostage of the agenda - there are topics which are in the agenda by AoA, nobody ask a person to stay the whole GM and vote for every resolution (instead of have some beer)! And is "many voices - more power" not the sign of democracy we all are talking about in all case of vote procedures? I'm against also about the representation of EB for members will. The voting for EB membership is seldom and not flex enough to live with so huge customer base. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

1 0

amendment proposal for the Article of association
by sergey myasoedov 28 Mar '12

28 Mar '12

Dear members of the RIPE NCC, as you probably know, there are more than 8.000 members in the RIPE NCC association. There are a lot of us. Members of the association can discuss things regarding the activity of association on General Meetings two times yearly. According to the Article of Association (AoA), the Agenda of GM has been performed by executive board. There are some obligative things to be included in the Agenda (elections, budget, charging scheme etc), and some things can be discussed upon proposal of the EB. Another possiblity to put some things into Agenda is the request of association members. Currently at least 2% of members should vote for adding items into Agenda. Respective to the total number of members this means that _160_ LIRs should ask the EB to discuss something that is not included in the Agenda. From my opinion that is too much. No more than 250-300 members are usually attending GM, even with the electronic voting. And 2% threshold means ~50% of active members, so there is no possibility to raise any question to the GM level. And this is the reason for my proposal: to change the threshold in the section 15.6 of AoA to 0.3% or to 30 or 40 members. Any suggestions? Appendix: Article 15 of AoA Article 15 – General Meeting: Convocations. Agenda. Resolutions 15.1 The Executive Board shall send the convocations for the General Meeting, including the agenda containing the subjects for the General Meeting, a URL to the verbatim text of the proposed resolutions and, if applicable, the draft Activity Plan and draft budget, to the Members at least four weeks before the Meeting. In the event the Executive Board does not have full authority under paragraph 10.1 of these Articles of Association, the authority to convoke a meeting shall be vested in the Management Team. 15.2 General Meetings shall be convened by the Executive Board by e-mails sent to the e-mail addresses as recorded in the Register (see article 5). 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; c. upon proposal by the Executive Board: adoption of amendments to the Standard Service Agreement; d. 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. 15.7 The General Meeting may only vote on resolutions with respect to subjects for which the verbatim text of the related proposed resolutions has been sent to the Members in the manner set out above. 15.8 On the written application of a group of Members who are jointly entitled to cast at least one-tenth (10%) of the total number of possible votes, the Executive Board shall convene a General Meeting within a period of four weeks. If the application has not been complied with within fourteen days, the applicants may then proceed to convene the Meeting themselves in the manner in which the General Meeting is convened by the Executive Board. 15.9 As long as all the Members of the Association are present or represented at a General Meeting, (legally) valid resolutions can be passed on all subjects brought up for discussion, even if the formalities prescribed by law or by these Articles of Association for the convocation and holding of Meetings have not been complied with, provided such resolutions are passed unanimously. -- Kind regards, sergey myasoedov

10 13

Update on RIPE NCC Police order
by Nigel Titley 27 Mar '12

27 Mar '12

Dear All, On the subject of the "Police Order" the RIPE NCC received last year, I would like to let you know what has been happening since then. As reported earlier, the RIPE NCC has sought legal advice and, having received that, decided to unfreeze the resources we were ordered to freeze under the police order. This was done in close communication with the Dutch officials involved. Further to that, the RIPE NCC legal team has drawn up a summons, which has been lodged with the court in The Hague. (The full Dutch text as well as a short English summary is available at https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/about-ripe-ncc-and-ripe/sum…) A reply from the Dutch State is expected in June; what happens after that depends on the course of action the court decides to take. I'm afraid we don't expect a final decision before mid 2013. I'll keep you fully updated as things unfold. Best regards, Nigel Titley Chairman RIPE NCC

3 2

Surprise on renew fees
by LIR 18 Feb '12

18 Feb '12

We have received the message with fees for year 2012, and we've been surprised, because we've been 'upgraded' from extra-small to small. I feel quite strange being now classified as small, because we are using the smallest assignment possible (one /21 IPv4, one /32 IPv6, one AS). I studied the computational algorithm for assigning points, and I feel quite strange points for IPv4 being calculated this way: (first year of allocation LESS 1992) * IPv4 units; in our case, this means => 2011 - 1992 * 1 => 19. See http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/info/billing/how-to-calcula… for scoring method. 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 looks like more we asked far from year 1992, more we have to pay. I don't see really a logic in this method. Any opinion? Can someone enlight me please? Antonio Nati

15 24

whois mntner
by Richard Kojedzinszky 18 Feb '12

18 Feb '12

Dear members, Maybe a stupid question, but I am used to update objects via signed emails. Now, a mntner object cannot be queried fully, I got a filtered result always, even with the maintainer not containing md5 passwords. So I am missing the auth: fields. $ whois -T mntner -B -r MNT-RK1387-RIPE % This is the RIPE Database query service. % The objects are in RPSL format. % % The RIPE Database is subject to Terms and Conditions. % See http://www.ripe.net/db/support/db-terms-conditions.pdf % Information related to 'MNT-RK1387-RIPE' mntner: MNT-RK1387-RIPE descr: Maintainer of RK1387-RIPE admin-c: RK1387-RIPE upd-to: richardk(a)tvnetwork.hu mnt-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE referral-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE changed: richardk(a)tvnetwork.hu 20080417 changed: krichy(a)tvnetwork.hu 20090814 changed: krichy(a)tvnetwork.hu 20090814 source: RIPE # Filtered >From https://apps.db.ripe.net/webupdates/search.html altough I can query the full object: mntner: MNT-RK1387-RIPE descr: Maintainer of RK1387-RIPE admin-c: RK1387-RIPE upd-to: richardk(a)tvnetwork.hu auth: PGPKEY-8F59B1B7 auth: X509-2577 mnt-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE referral-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE changed: richardk(a)tvnetwork.hu 20080417 changed: krichy(a)tvnetwork.hu 20090814 changed: krichy(a)tvnetwork.hu 20090814 source: RIPE And as I am used to copy-paste the result, change what I like, and then send it back, this does not work anymore. Any suggestions are welcome. Regards, Kojedzinszky Richard Euronet Magyarorszag Informatikai Zrt.

5 7

Re: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce
by Brandon Butterworth 17 Feb '12

17 Feb '12

> Well I looked and saw that out of the top 45,000 Alexa ranked sites, > that 100 are on the IPV6 launch list, not exactly inspiring. I'd put the BBC on but the timing is bad. I was planning for the previously discussed 01-01-2013 which is easy in the post Olympic chill out. June isn't, everything is being finished ready for lock down. brandon

5 4

Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees
by poty＠iiat.ru 17 Feb '12

17 Feb '12

> -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Comunicaciones ACOTELSA > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 2:18 PM > To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees > ... > > And I don´t like speak about the general meetings to deal the new > charge scheme because in my enterprise, with only one /26 IPv4, we > can´t pay the cost to go to the general meeting (travel, salary) and I > and imagine that there are more like us so only the big enterprise can > assist, negotiate and vote (although we can use the internet vote). Yes! You knew this! Why you don't use your vote rights through the Internet then? It doesn't rise you expenses and you have had the full ability to vote for all questions since this year! Many LIRs got the opportunity at the last meeting. Our company can't (like yours) go to each general meeting, but I took every opportunity for 3 year already to vote electronically! > > In resume, I can't understand why a foundation increase its expenses > year over year. If you don't take part in the community discussions and don't vote - you'll never know why. You can read all about last GM and learn that for the coming year RIPE NCC will publish expenses in more details. You can suggest to eliminate an activity to lower the overall cost and if you have support - the increases may stop! Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce
by Brandon Butterworth 16 Feb '12

16 Feb '12

> Google: chinese olympics ipv6 google UK olympics ipv6 > Happened in 2008 nuff said not happening in 2012, really lame (not just BBC site) > Every large site today being served by load balancers today can turn on ipv6 I know, we can, I had it running for v6 day. If we'd started a year ago it could have been in the plan for this June but Vint said 2013 and no other announcements were made until Jan. Too late, ops had already decided making it production wasn't high enough up their list until of stuff that really must work for the Olympics. Tough, would have been good to do. brandon

6 6