Feedback Requested: RIPE NCC Broker List
Dear RIPE NCC members, The Executive Board has been following this discussion and we can see general agreement for a change in the way brokers are listed on the RIPE NCC's website. The question is whether the RIPE NCC should remove the list entirely, or otherwise take steps to improve its approach. There are pros and cons with both options. Removing the list is straightforward and would spare the RIPE NCC a few headaches. However, it is worth considering whether the current model provides some incentive for brokers to play by the rules and what might happen if this incentive is gone. Conversely, it's clear that some brokers are still spamming RIPE Database contacts. Is this the only problem we are seeking to eliminate here, or are there others? Could an updated set of terms or a stricter approach by the RIPE NCC help to mitigate this? Before the board makes its decision, we would like to hear your thoughts on this list. Kind regards, Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
Hi Christian, On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:17:54AM +0100, Christian Kaufmann wrote:
Removing the list is straightforward and would spare the RIPE NCC a few headaches. However, it is worth considering whether the current model provides some incentive for brokers to play by the rules and what might happen if this incentive is gone.
How about keep the list but amend the Recognised IPv4 Transfer Broker Agreement to explicitly mention acceptable use of the RIPE database¹, and also that breach of these terms shall result in immediate removal from the list for a period of (for example) 3 months and a fee for re-admittance to the list to cover the time spent by RIPE staff in investigating any complaints? Then force the entire current list onto the new terms after 30 days. There is clearly value to brokers in being on this list. There is clearly value to the RIPE community in knowing that a broker is not in persistent breach of community norms. Having such a list without enforcing rules makes the list worthless, and that is the state we are currently in, since right now the document states that brokers must obey policies yet several brokers do not do so and remain on the list until there is a major outcry against them. Actually investigating complaints and enforcing the policy will take resources which is why I suggest that brokers who break the rules pay for that activity. If robust enforcement of the Recognised IPv4 Broker Agreement is not going to take place then I think there should not be such a thing, i.e. abolish the list. I would not suggest changing the current situation where being initially added to the list is free, since this might give the impression that RIPE is evaluating these applications in some way. Cheers, Andy ¹ The document already does state that brokers shall adhere to RIPE policies and procedures, but perhaps worth being explicit in this case since it does seem to be the most common complaint. -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
Hello list, As one of the brokers on the list since 2013, I have watched the list grow along with the spam abuse. I am also a resource holder who receives solicitations on email addresses I only use for POCs on address blocks. I have replied to brokers who have thus solicited me, and accused them of improper use of Whois for marketing. But they told me they did not scrape addresses from Whois, they simply purchased a list of email addresses with unknown provenance. It's probably true, and provides a defense of sorts. They aren't spamming, they are targeted-marketing using available mailing lists from commercial entities. They point the finger at the list providers. It's a weak defense, and is there really a line between targeted-marketing and spam? In terms of broker self-regulation, there have been fitful attempts to organize for that purpose, but I don't see that in the offing. I vote to keep the broker list, have RIPE be more aggressive and public in delisting spammers, and urge people not to do business with spammers as the best way forward. We see value in being on the list for so many years, we get some business from it, but because we are among the brokers who behave, we also have incentive to see the miscreants removed. Regards Mike Burns IPTrading.com -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Andy Smith Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 5:01 AM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Feedback Requested: RIPE NCC Broker List Hi Christian, On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:17:54AM +0100, Christian Kaufmann wrote:
Removing the list is straightforward and would spare the RIPE NCC a few headaches. However, it is worth considering whether the current model provides some incentive for brokers to play by the rules and what might happen if this incentive is gone.
How about keep the list but amend the Recognised IPv4 Transfer Broker Agreement to explicitly mention acceptable use of the RIPE database¹, and also that breach of these terms shall result in immediate removal from the list for a period of (for example) 3 months and a fee for re-admittance to the list to cover the time spent by RIPE staff in investigating any complaints? Then force the entire current list onto the new terms after 30 days. There is clearly value to brokers in being on this list. There is clearly value to the RIPE community in knowing that a broker is not in persistent breach of community norms. Having such a list without enforcing rules makes the list worthless, and that is the state we are currently in, since right now the document states that brokers must obey policies yet several brokers do not do so and remain on the list until there is a major outcry against them. Actually investigating complaints and enforcing the policy will take resources which is why I suggest that brokers who break the rules pay for that activity. If robust enforcement of the Recognised IPv4 Broker Agreement is not going to take place then I think there should not be such a thing, i.e. abolish the list. I would not suggest changing the current situation where being initially added to the list is free, since this might give the impression that RIPE is evaluating these applications in some way. Cheers, Andy ¹ The document already does state that brokers shall adhere to RIPE policies and procedures, but perhaps worth being explicit in this case since it does seem to be the most common complaint. -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mike%40iptrading.com
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Mike Burns wrote: (...)
I vote to keep the broker list, have RIPE be more aggressive and public in delisting spammers, and urge people not to do business with spammers as the best way forward.
Why should we stop at spammers? What about hijackers? Shouldn't they be de-listed as well if they happen to be part of the list...? Regards, Carlos
On 19/12/2019 11:17, Christian Kaufmann wrote: I vote to keep the list since it is needed and does provide incentive to brokers to play by the rules. In addition to keeping the list, RIPE NCC should auto-send a CoC to brokers on an automatic basis once a quarter. Any broker that the email bounces should be removed from the list. Any broker that doesn't ACK the auto-email within 5 business days should be removed from the list. Regards, Hank
Dear RIPE NCC members,
The Executive Board has been following this discussion and we can see general agreement for a change in the way brokers are listed on the RIPE NCC's website.
The question is whether the RIPE NCC should remove the list entirely, or otherwise take steps to improve its approach. There are pros and cons with both options.
Removing the list is straightforward and would spare the RIPE NCC a few headaches. However, it is worth considering whether the current model provides some incentive for brokers to play by the rules and what might happen if this incentive is gone.
Conversely, it's clear that some brokers are still spamming RIPE Database contacts. Is this the only problem we are seeking to eliminate here, or are there others? Could an updated set of terms or a stricter approach by the RIPE NCC help to mitigate this?
Before the board makes its decision, we would like to hear your thoughts on this list.
Kind regards,
Christian Kaufmann RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman
_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hank%40efes.iucc.ac.i...
Hello, Let me summarize if I understand right this disscusion... There are two sides, on one side there are network operators who need IPV4 addresses to keep the normal work of global network (Internet) from other side there are RIPE who spread these IPV4 addresses to operators and care that spreading to be fair for all (At all RIPE _MUST_ operate equal to all it members). So far so good, and There come thirtd side who get these IPV4 resources from RIPE but do not know what to do with them. The third side refuses to return these IPV4 to RIPE, but want to "sell" them to others who need these resources to keep global network operation. Meanwhile the second side who _MUST_ care for equal right between operators and _MUST_ care global network to operate right, do nothing than to help the parasitic third side operate and making life and bussines of the first side harder. Am I the only one who sees the things like this, and feeling everything is wrong and not fair ? Seems like the things will not change in right direction, and the third side (the parasitic one) will not return back these IPV4 resources to RIPE. The first side will keep starving for IPV4 resources, and will prefer to "buy" them from "certificied" broker. The second side RIPE will do nothing more than to "certificied" a broker on list on official RIPE page. So to become RIPE member there are fee , why not to those brokers to have also fee ? So I offer: 1. To keep IPV4 broker list on RIPE site. 2. To get listed and become broker of IPV4 one time singup fee of 4000 EURO. 3. For every /24 listed from broker for "sale" 300 EURO yearly fee. 4. If one block (/24 or more) is listed for "sale" and not sold in one year RIPE automaticaly to withdraw in the RIPE free addresses pool from broker. 5. One time listed block (/24 or more) to can _NOT_ be listed only again nor withdraw from the list untill it is sold or point 4 become. Ivaylo Josifov
I bump this, but we also need to maintain the LIR-to-LIR transferring affordable and simple as is now, and we need to find a good method to recognize the LIRs (ISPs for example or big companies that need to be a LIR) and the broker (that buy and sell IPv4 for business and does not contribute to the internet grow) that canno't be listed as a LIR or everyone that need a LIR-to-LIR transfer will be listed as broker. In short we need to find a way to permit the LIR transfer and recognize the brokers, and prevent brokers from registering as a LIR Alessandro Bondesan -----Messaggio originale----- Da: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] Per conto di ivaylo Inviato: giovedì 19 dicembre 2019 18:55 A: members-discuss@ripe.net Oggetto: Re: [members-discuss] Feedback Requested: RIPE NCC Broker List Hello, Let me summarize if I understand right this disscusion... There are two sides, on one side there are network operators who need IPV4 addresses to keep the normal work of global network (Internet) from other side there are RIPE who spread these IPV4 addresses to operators and care that spreading to be fair for all (At all RIPE _MUST_ operate equal to all it members). So far so good, and There come thirtd side who get these IPV4 resources from RIPE but do not know what to do with them. The third side refuses to return these IPV4 to RIPE, but want to "sell" them to others who need these resources to keep global network operation. Meanwhile the second side who _MUST_ care for equal right between operators and _MUST_ care global network to operate right, do nothing than to help the parasitic third side operate and making life and bussines of the first side harder. Am I the only one who sees the things like this, and feeling everything is wrong and not fair ? Seems like the things will not change in right direction, and the third side (the parasitic one) will not return back these IPV4 resources to RIPE. The first side will keep starving for IPV4 resources, and will prefer to "buy" them from "certificied" broker. The second side RIPE will do nothing more than to "certificied" a broker on list on official RIPE page. So to become RIPE member there are fee , why not to those brokers to have also fee ? So I offer: 1. To keep IPV4 broker list on RIPE site. 2. To get listed and become broker of IPV4 one time singup fee of 4000 EURO. 3. For every /24 listed from broker for "sale" 300 EURO yearly fee. 4. If one block (/24 or more) is listed for "sale" and not sold in one year RIPE automaticaly to withdraw in the RIPE free addresses pool from broker. 5. One time listed block (/24 or more) to can _NOT_ be listed only again nor withdraw from the list untill it is sold or point 4 become. Ivaylo Josifov _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/a.bondesan%40netgloba...
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
On 19/12/2019 11:17, Christian Kaufmann wrote:
I vote to keep the list since it is needed and does provide incentive to brokers to play by the rules. In addition to keeping the list, RIPE NCC should auto-send a CoC to brokers on an automatic basis once a quarter. Any broker that the email bounces should be removed from the list. Any broker that doesn't ACK the auto-email within 5 business days should be removed from the list.
Regards, Hank
Hi, I would be flexible about the 5 business days deadline, but what Hank described seems a good approach to me. Regards, Carlos
The problem I see most frequently with the list of brokers is that people unfamiliar with the community and transfer process take this as a list of approved, trustworthy IPv4 facilitators. This is not always the case, nor is it possible for RIPE to endorse and rate each broker. I know there is a disclaimer on the list but people don't read these warnings, the mere existence on the website acts as an endorsement. Therefore, I would like to see either the list removed or add a way for people to leave reviews. On 12/20/19, 11:10 AM, "members-discuss on behalf of Carlos Friaças via members-discuss" <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote: On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On 19/12/2019 11:17, Christian Kaufmann wrote: > > I vote to keep the list since it is needed and does provide incentive to > brokers to play by the rules. In addition to keeping the list, RIPE NCC > should auto-send a CoC to brokers on an automatic basis once a quarter. Any > broker that the email bounces should be removed from the list. Any broker > that doesn't ACK the auto-email within 5 business days should be removed from > the list. > > Regards, > Hank Hi, I would be flexible about the 5 business days deadline, but what Hank described seems a good approach to me. Regards, Carlos
I have to agree with Tina on this. There are already T&C where the facilitators need to adhere to and some are already violating them and the NCC isn't able (because not all violations are reported..) to curb those. And that won't change .. The perception of companies that this list is a managed / trustworthy source of facilitators with a great reputation and that having a bad reflection to the NCC if it isn't, is in my point a bigger issue. I would say to remove the list. There are enough resources on the internet to find a IP resource facilitator / broker. There is little to no additional value to gain here by maintaining it and try to enforce upon it. Once the list is gone, I would argue that there are still enough options for the NCC to act on T&C violations.. See what ARIN did with Cogent recently .. block their access to the Whois ... Erik Bais On 07/01/2020, 20:34, "members-discuss on behalf of Morris, Tina via members-discuss" <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote: The problem I see most frequently with the list of brokers is that people unfamiliar with the community and transfer process take this as a list of approved, trustworthy IPv4 facilitators. This is not always the case, nor is it possible for RIPE to endorse and rate each broker. I know there is a disclaimer on the list but people don't read these warnings, the mere existence on the website acts as an endorsement. Therefore, I would like to see either the list removed or add a way for people to leave reviews. On 12/20/19, 11:10 AM, "members-discuss on behalf of Carlos Friaças via members-discuss" <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote: On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On 19/12/2019 11:17, Christian Kaufmann wrote: > > I vote to keep the list since it is needed and does provide incentive to > brokers to play by the rules. In addition to keeping the list, RIPE NCC > should auto-send a CoC to brokers on an automatic basis once a quarter. Any > broker that the email bounces should be removed from the list. Any broker > that doesn't ACK the auto-email within 5 business days should be removed from > the list. > > Regards, > Hank Hi, I would be flexible about the 5 business days deadline, but what Hank described seems a good approach to me. Regards, Carlos _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ebais%40a2b-internet....
This discussion originated as a result of members receiving spam from brokers on the list. I have pointed out that eliminating the list will have no effect on this activity. Shutting down the list is punishing those who did not engage in this behavior. I don't get the argument that because some people might infer something that isn't there (RIPE's support for listed brokers), the answer is to shut down all the information presented on the list. In particular the length of time on the list is a valuable data point to our clients. We get business leads from our presence on the list, it has a benefit for us. Our clients who have found us via the list have benefitted from the list. At least from my perspective, these are real benefits, but where is the evidence that people are actually interpreting the list as RIPE's researched, vetted, and sanctioned brokers and having that lead to a problem? Has anybody actually experienced this? We got here as a result of spam from brokers. With the list in place we can remove the spammers and cause them at least a little grief. If we remove the list, the spammers are completely unaffected. The Cogent announcement is an example of an RIR punishing an entity for ignoring agreements. In the same manner RIPE can punish brokers who ignore their agreement with RIPE. The RIPE broker agreement requires brokers to do certain things, like adhere to policy, refrain from representing themselves as RIPE, not go bankrupt, not to engage in un-booked transfers, to indemnify RIPE for certain claims related to transfers, and to provide correct information. I would add a section that prohibits unsolicited commercial emailing from listed brokers. That is the only action required to address this particular problem, no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Erik Bais Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 7:37 AM To: Morris, Tina <tinam@amazon.com>; Carlos Friaças <cfriacas@fccn.pt>; Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Feedback Requested: RIPE NCC Broker List I have to agree with Tina on this. There are already T&C where the facilitators need to adhere to and some are already violating them and the NCC isn't able (because not all violations are reported..) to curb those. And that won't change .. The perception of companies that this list is a managed / trustworthy source of facilitators with a great reputation and that having a bad reflection to the NCC if it isn't, is in my point a bigger issue. I would say to remove the list. There are enough resources on the internet to find a IP resource facilitator / broker. There is little to no additional value to gain here by maintaining it and try to enforce upon it. Once the list is gone, I would argue that there are still enough options for the NCC to act on T&C violations.. See what ARIN did with Cogent recently .. block their access to the Whois ... Erik Bais On 07/01/2020, 20:34, "members-discuss on behalf of Morris, Tina via members-discuss" <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote: The problem I see most frequently with the list of brokers is that people unfamiliar with the community and transfer process take this as a list of approved, trustworthy IPv4 facilitators. This is not always the case, nor is it possible for RIPE to endorse and rate each broker. I know there is a disclaimer on the list but people don't read these warnings, the mere existence on the website acts as an endorsement. Therefore, I would like to see either the list removed or add a way for people to leave reviews. On 12/20/19, 11:10 AM, "members-discuss on behalf of Carlos Friaças via members-discuss" <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote: On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > On 19/12/2019 11:17, Christian Kaufmann wrote: > > I vote to keep the list since it is needed and does provide incentive to > brokers to play by the rules. In addition to keeping the list, RIPE NCC > should auto-send a CoC to brokers on an automatic basis once a quarter. Any > broker that the email bounces should be removed from the list. Any broker > that doesn't ACK the auto-email within 5 business days should be removed from > the list. > > Regards, > Hank Hi, I would be flexible about the 5 business days deadline, but what Hank described seems a good approach to me. Regards, Carlos _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ebais%40a2b-internet.... _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/mike%40iptrading.com
On 1/16/20 08:31, Mike Burns wrote: [...]
Shutting down the list is punishing those who did not engage in this behavior. exactly I don't get the argument that because some people might infer something that isn't there (RIPE's support for listed brokers), the answer is to shut down all the information presented on the list. In particular the length of time on the list is a valuable data point to our clients.
Why not just add on the page with the list some *BOLD* text clarifying that RIPE NCC does not endorse any of the brokers listed.
We get business leads from our presence on the list, it has a benefit for us. Our clients who have found us via the list have benefitted from the list. At least from my perspective, these are real benefits, but where is the evidence that people are actually interpreting the list as RIPE's researched, vetted, and sanctioned brokers and having that lead to a problem? Has anybody actually experienced this?
In our 8 years of activity probably more than half of our customers have done business with us because they have found us on ARIN/APNIC/RIPE NCC lists. Removing that list will only cause more confusion to all the members. Also, no list will mean nobody will contact us that way any longer and we will have to do what everyone else is doing then. Actually, we have had several customers that have requested us to be on the list in order to even consider doing business with us.
The RIPE broker agreement requires brokers to do certain things, like adhere to policy, refrain from representing themselves as RIPE, not go bankrupt, not to engage in un-booked transfers, to indemnify RIPE for certain claims related to transfers, and to provide correct information. I would add a section that prohibits unsolicited commercial emailing from listed brokers. That is the only action required to address this particular problem, no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I second that. Let's add the section that prohibits unsolicited commercial e-mailing and have everyone on the list of brokers sign an addendum. I also agree that the list should be cleaned at least yearly and everyone there should confirm to the RIPE NCC that they are still a broker of Internet Resources. I do not agree with a reviews system. It can be -- Elvis Daniel Velea V4Escrow LLC Chief Executive Officer E-mail: elvis@v4escrow.net Mobile: +1 (702) 970 0921
"Conversely, it's clear that some brokers are still spamming RIPE Database contacts. Is this the only problem we are seeking to eliminate here, or are there others? Could an updated set of terms or a stricter approach by the RIPE NCC help to mitigate this? Before the board makes its decision, we would like to hear your thoughts on this list." Hello, I think it's worth considering that removing the broker list will not remove the spam problem; it might have the opposite effect. I am not sure how the presence of the list corresponds with a broker's ability to spam. The transfer logs are public, Whois contacts are public, how is the broker list connected? Separately, the idea that a broker should not also be an LIR has been raised, and I am genuinely curious why this is considered a problem. We are an LIR because we feel it give us better insight and ability to provide guidance to our clients as well as access to the RIPE Transfer Listing Service, which we rarely use. As an LIR we can also sponsor PI blocks for our clients who need that service. For the smallest of customers, the least expensive route is to purchase a PI /24 and sponsorship. This avoids expensive RIPE membership and many small enterprises are buying their own blocks due to problems getting or keeping blocks from their upstreams, and to facilitate ISP shopping without renumbering. Regards, Mike Burns
participants (10)
-
Alessandro Bondesan -
Andy Smith -
Carlos Friaças -
Christian Kaufmann -
Elvis Daniel Velea -
Erik Bais -
Hank Nussbacher -
ivaylo -
Mike Burns -
Morris, Tina