- ncc-announce - mailman.ripe.net

[training] RIPE NCC Webinars - new dates
by Training Services 18 Jun '15

18 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce the dates for the RIPE NCC Webinars for the coming quarter. These interactive on-line learning sessions take about one hour, and give you the opportunity to learn and interact with our trainers without leaving your desk. In the next 3 months you can participate in the following Webinars: - Advanced RIPE Atlas Usage (NEW!) - Introduction to the RIPE Database - RIPE Database - Advanced Topics - IPv6 in the RIPE Database - IPv6 Addressing Plan - Webinar for New LIRs - Resource Certification (RPKI) Register now at https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/webinars Participation is limited to 20 people, so don't hesitate if you want to take part! If you have any questions, please email <training(a)ripe.net>. We look forward to seeing you online. Kind regards, RIPE NCC Training Services

1 0

[service] Planned Maintenance on 16 June 2015
by Gerard Leurs 15 Jun '15

15 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, On Tuesday, 16 June 2015, from 06:00 to 07:00 UTC, we will carry out maintenance work on one of our fileservers. This fileserver is used mainly for internal services, so we do not expect the maintenance work to affect external services. However, we apologise in advance for any inconvenience this may cause. If you have any questions, please contact <ops(a)ripe.net>. Kind regards, Gerard Leurs Operations Coordinator RIPE NCC

1 0

[training] RIPE NCC Academy - New “Introduction to IPv6” Course
by Sandra Bras 04 Jun '15

04 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC is pleased to announce the launch of a brand new online course: Introduction to IPv6. This course is now available on the RIPE NCC Academy, our virtual learning environment that allows you to take courses and obtain certificates online: https://academy.ripe.net/ You can sign in to the RIPE NCC Academy with your RIPE NCC Access account (if you don’t already have one, you can easily create one through the link above). The RIPE NCC Academy is available to everyone, free of charge. Before starting this course, you should know that: - You have 90 days to complete the course from the moment you start it - If you’re very confident that you already know all you need to know about IPv6, you can choose to complete the activities without studying the content - You will earn a certificate when you achieve a total score of 70% or higher in the course - Your certificate will remain valid for three years We have some prizes for you: - The first user to get a certificate for this course will receive a copy of the book “IPv6 Essentials”, signed by the author, Sylvia Hagen - The first 20 users to get a certificate for this course will get one IPv6 CIDR chart mug Don’t wait any longer - graduate to the next level today! If you don’t yet have your RIPE Database Expert certificate, make sure you get it! If you have any questions, feel free to contact us at <academy(a)ripe.net>. Watch our RIPE NCC Academy teaser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7K89w8VXCI Happy learning, Sandra Brás E-Learning Coordinator

1 0

[news] CCWG Report - Deadline for comments on 3 June 23:59 UTC
by Athina Fragkouli 02 Jun '15

02 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, This is a reminder that the CCWG-Accountability is seeking public comments until tomorrow, 3 June, 23:59 UTC. The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) has published a Draft Report that contains its initial Draft Proposal. The Draft Report can be found here: CCWG-Accountability Draft Report (without annexes): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos… [PDF, 1.72 MB] CCWG-Accountability Draft Report (with annexes): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos… [PDF, 2.05 MB] This initial Draft Proposal is focused on draft Work Stream 1 recommendations. Work Stream 1 relates to those changes to ICANN’s accountability arrangements that must be in place, or committed to, prior to the IANA stewardship transition. More information can be found here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-20… The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) has published a Draft Report that contains its initial Draft Proposal. The Draft Report can be found here: CCWG-Accountability Draft Report (without annexes): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos… [PDF, 1.72 MB] CCWG-Accountability Draft Report (with annexes): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos… [PDF, 2.05 MB] The ASO representatives to the CCWG encourage the numbers community to review and give feedback on any specific points in the Draft Report, and reply to the questions listed in the document. At the same time we would like to draw the numbers community’s attention to the following matters, as we believe that they are of interest to the numbers community and we would appreciate the community's feedback: 1. Revised Mission The CCWG suggests clarifications on the description of ICANN’s mission (more details in section 3.1 of the Draft Report). During the drafting process the ASO representatives provided a tentative description of ICANN’s mission in regard to the coordination of policy development for Internet number resources (page 20, paragraph 57). The tentative description reads as follows: “In this role, with respect to IP addresses and AS numbers, ICANN’s Mission is described in the ASO MoU between ICANN and RIRs.” Do you feel that this description is accurate? 2. Revised Commitments and Core Values The CCWG proposes an amendment to one of the core values of the Bylaws (page 25, paragraph 89). The proposed amendment reads as follows: “Employ open, transparent and bottom-up, [private sector led multistakeholder] policy development processes that (i) seeks input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act, (ii) promote well- informed decisions based on expert advice, and (iii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process;” Given that the RIR global policies are described as open, transparent and bottom-up, the ASO representatives have a concern on the inclusion of the notion of “private sector led multistakeholder”, which is put in square brackets. The addition of this notion may lead to uncertainty on whether ICANN’s core values include the employment of RIR global policies. Do you agree with the removal of the notion “private sector led multistakeholder”? 3. US Headquarters as part of the Fundamental Bylaws The CCWG incorporated some provisions from the Affirmation of Commitments relevant to ICANN accountability into the Bylaws (in particular regarding ICANN’s Mission and Core Values). The CCWG has suggested defining these provisions as "Fundamental Bylaws". The concept of Fundamental Bylaws is described in section 3.2 (pp 27-31) of the Draft Report. The main difference with the common Bylaws provisions is that while the Board could propose a change to this Bylaws provision, SO/ACs could block the proposed change (by a 75% vote). On the other hand any change to Fundamental Bylaws would require approval by SO/ACs (75% vote). One of these provisions requires that ICANN “remains headquartered in the United States of America”. The CCWG noted that this provision exists already in current ICANN Bylaws, at Article XVIII Section 1: “OFFICES. The principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of America. ICANN may also have an additional office or offices within or outside the United States of America as it may from time to time establish.” As the rest of Affirmation of Commitments provisions are suggested to be incorporated in the Fundamental Bylaws, the CCWG considered whether this provision should also be listed as a Fundamental Bylaw. The comment by the ASO Representatives was that while the rest of the Affirmation of Commitments provisions incorporated can indeed be seen as fundamental principles, the notion of US Headquarters is an administrative issue, which would not be considered as fundamental. Do you agree with the ASO representatives approach? 4. Appealing Mechanisms The CCWG has proposed enhancements to the two appealing mechanisms described in ICANN Bylaws, i.e. the Independent Review Panel and the Reconsideration process. The ASO representatives commented that, even though the ICANN Board approves its global policies, the processes and forums for bottom-up policy development relating to number resources is outside of ICANN, and there are separate appealing procedures for disputes relating to Internet number resources. In particular there is: 1. an arbitration process described in the ASO MoU for disputes relevant to the Global Policy development process 2. an arbitration process described in the draft Service Level Agreement between the five RIRs and IANA Numbering Services Operator for disputes relevant to the IANA numbering services. 3. A bottom-up process for any concerns that a third party may have relating to Internet number resources issues. Additionally the ASO representatives noted that it was requested by the CWG that decisions regarding ccTLD delegations or revocations would be excluded from standing, until relevant appeal mechanisms have been developed by the ccTLD community, in coordination with other parties. Considering the above, the ASO representatives would propose that any appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG should not cover disputes relating to Internet number resources. 5. Powers The CCWG suggested that the following powers would ensure community empowerment: - Reconsider/reject budget or strategy/operating plans (section 5.2 of the Draft Report, pp 47-48). We would like to note that this power was listed as one of the expected accountability mechanisms by the CWG. - Reconsider/reject changes to ICANN Standard Bylaws (section 5.3 of the Draft Report pp 48-49) - Approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws (section 5.4 of the Draft Report pp 49-50) - Remove individual ICANN Directors (section 5.5 of the Draft Report pp 50-52) - Recall the entire ICANN Board (section 5.6 of the Draft Report pp 52- 53) These powers would be exercised by changing ICANN’s structure into a membership-based organisation, of which the SO/ACs would be the members. Details of this structure can be found in section 5.1.1 of the proposal (pp 42-45). Do you have any concerns or comments on any of these powers or the suggested structure? Thank you, Athina Fragkouli ASO representative to the CCWG-Accountability

1 0

[news] Email Resource Requests No Longer Supported
by Ingrid Wijte 01 Jun '15

01 Jun '15

Dear colleagues, On 7 October 2014, we announced our timeline for phasing out the text-based email request forms on our website: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2014-October/002890… While the forms themselves were archived in March, we have continued accepting these forms to allow members time to adjust their internal processes. As the final part of this implementation, we will now no longer accept resource requests by email. Members can now use either the request forms available through the LIR Portal, or the Resource Request API which can be found here: https://www.ripe.net/support/documentation/developer-documentation/resource… In order to maintain transparency, we have also published the information LIRs need to provide in order to complete a request form: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/supporting-not… Kind regards Ingrid Wijte Registration Services Assistant Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

[news] RIPE Policy Proposals - May Update
by Marco Schmidt 27 May '15

27 May '15

Dear colleagues, Please find below the monthly overview of open policy proposals and the stage they have reached in the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). If you wish to join the discussions about a proposal, please do so on the relevant working group mailing list. Proposals Open for Discussion: New proposal: 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size" – discussion open until 27 May 2015 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations"– discussion open until 9 June 2015 Proposals Awaiting Impact Analysis: 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" Proposal Overviews: PROPOSAL: 2015-03, "Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size" OVERVIEW: This proposal aims to remove the requirement that large IPv6 allocations are based only on existing users and network infrastructure. As a result of this policy implementation, the RIPE NCC, when evaluating IPv6 allocation requests, will be able to consider additional criteria. STATUS: Discussion phase WHERE TO COMMENT: Address Policy Working Group: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net DEADLINE: 27 May 2015 FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-03 PROPOSAL: 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" OVERVIEW: Currently, IPv4 allocations received from another LIR can only be re-allocated after 24 months, while IPv4 allocations made by the RIPE NCC can be transferred immediately. This proposal aims to align the transfer requirements with a 24-month holding period for all IPv4 allocations. RIPE NCC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Includes the point that currently around 10% of the allocations made by the RIPE NCC are transferred shortly after they have been allocated. STATUS: Review phase WHERE TO COMMENT: Address Policy Working Group: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net DEADLINE: 09 June 2015 FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 PROPOSAL: 2015-02, "Keep IPv6 PI When Requesting IPv6 Allocation" OVERVIEW: This proposal aims to remove the requirement that LIRs should return their IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) assignment when requesting an IPv6 allocation. STATUS: Discussion phase - awaiting impact analysis* FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-02 PROPOSAL: 2014-03, "Remove Multihoming Requirement for AS Number Assignments" OVERVIEW: This proposal aims to ease the requirements when requesting an Autonomous System (AS) Number. It is proposed to remove the need for evaluation, limit the number of AS Numbers per organisation to 1,000, and require that 16-bit AS Numbers are multihomed after nine months. RIPE NCC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Includes the point that it will be the End User that decides if the need for an AS Number is technically reasonable. STATUS: Review phase - awaiting new proposal version and following new impact analysis* FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2014-03 *The goal of the impact analysis is to provide supporting information to facilitate discussions about the proposal and to outline the proposal’s possible impact if it were to be accepted. ===== The RIPE NCC provides an overview of current RIPE Policy Proposals on www.ripe.net: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/current-proposals/current-policy-… During the RIPE 70 Meeting, the Address Policy Working Group held two sessions on 13 May, where ongoing and possible future policy proposals were discussed. Besides the proposals mentioned above, ideas for two new policy proposals were also presented. One proposal would unify the transfer policies for the different Internet resources into one policy document. The other proposal would aim to allocate more IPv4 address space from the RIPE NCC to its members. A video with the presentations for these ideas can be found online: https://ripe70.ripe.net/archives/video/55/ We look forward to your involvement in the PDP. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt RIPE Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

[meetings] RIPE NCC Regional Meeting Tbilisi: Report
by Serge Radovcic 26 May '15

26 May '15

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC Regional Meeting Tbilisi took place in Georgia on 19 May 2015. We had an excellent attendance and the meeting was a valuable opportunity to engage with the local community. A full meeting report, including a link to the presentation archive, is available at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/regional-meetings/ripe-ncc-region… We would like to thank our local host, the Georgian National Communications Commission (GNCC). Kind regards Serge Radovcic Chief Communications Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

[news] IANA Stewardship on the Agenda at RIPE NCC Roundtable Lunch for Governments and Regulators
by Chris Buckridge 21 May '15

21 May '15

Dear colleagues, Following on from many successful Roundtable Meetings for Governments and Regulators, the RIPE NCC organised a Roundtable Lunch for public sector participants adjacent to the RIPE 70 Meeting in Amsterdam on Thursday, 14 May 2015. Approximately 20 representatives of governments, regulators and industry participated. The focus of the lunch agenda was the IANA stewardship transition, which was discussed in the RIPE 70 plenary session earlier in the week. The lunch was an opportunity for governments to share their perspectives and ask questions of RIPE CRISP team representatives and RIPE NCC staff. The RIPE NCC also shared a presentation with attendees on recent developments in RIPE policy, though time constraints meant that there was no opportunity for discussion of this topic. Copies of both presentation slide decks are available on the website: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/roundtable/may-2015/presentations The Roundtable Lunch was held between the two sessions of the RIPE 70 Cooperation Working Group, which also allowed government participants to contribute to the Cooperation WG discussions on topics including net neutrality, security and human rights in technology. If you have any questions regarding these Roundtable Meetings, please send an email to <roundtable(a)ripe.net>. Best regards, Chris Buckridge Senior External Relations Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

[GM] Voting Report from RIPE NCC General Meeting May 2015
by Fergal Cunningham 20 May '15

20 May '15

Dear colleagues, The full voting report from the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) May 2015 is now available: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2015/voting-report The report gives the full vote count for the four resolutions that members voted on and the RIPE NCC Executive Board election. The election reporting also shows how votes were transferred using the instant run-off voting system. There is a link to the BigPulse vote verification page, where electronic voters who chose to get voting receipts can verify that their vote was recorded correctly. If you have any questions about the voting report, please don't hesitate to contact me. Kind regards, Fergal Cunningham Membership Communications Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

[news] CCWG Report - Issues of interest to the numbers community
by Athina Fragkouli 15 May '15

15 May '15

Dear colleagues, The Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG) has published a Draft Report that contains its initial Draft Proposal. The Draft Report can be found here: CCWG-Accountability Draft Report (without annexes): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos… [PDF, 1.72 MB] CCWG-Accountability Draft Report (with annexes): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cwg-accountability-draft-propos… [PDF, 2.05 MB] The ASO representatives to the CCWG encourage the numbers community to review and give feedback on any specific points in the Draft Report, and reply to the questions listed in the document. At the same time we would like to draw the numbers community’s attention to the following matters, as we believe that they are of interest to the numbers community and we would appreciate the community's feedback: 1. Revised Mission The CCWG suggests clarifications on the description of ICANN’s mission (more details in section 3.1 of the Draft Report). During the drafting process the ASO representatives provided a tentative description of ICANN’s mission in regard to the coordination of policy development for Internet number resources (page 20, paragraph 57). The tentative description reads as follows: “In this role, with respect to IP addresses and AS numbers, ICANN’s Mission is described in the ASO MoU between ICANN and RIRs.” Do you feel that this description is accurate? 2. Revised Commitments and Core Values The CCWG proposes an amendment to one of the core values of the Bylaws (page 25, paragraph 89). The proposed amendment reads as follows: “Employ open, transparent and bottom-up, [private sector led multistakeholder] policy development processes that (i) seeks input from the public, for whose benefit ICANN shall in all events act, (ii) promote well- informed decisions based on expert advice, and (iii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process;” Given that the RIR global policies are described as open, transparent and bottom-up, the ASO representatives have a concern on the inclusion of the notion of “private sector led multistakeholder”, which is put in square brackets. The addition of this notion may lead to uncertainty on whether ICANN’s core values include the employment of RIR global policies. Do you agree with the removal of the notion “private sector led multistakeholder”? 3. US Headquarters as part of the Fundamental Bylaws The CCWG incorporated some provisions from the Affirmation of Commitments relevant to ICANN accountability into the Bylaws (in particular regarding ICANN’s Mission and Core Values). The CCWG has suggested defining these provisions as "Fundamental Bylaws". The concept of Fundamental Bylaws is described in section 3.2 (pp 27-31) of the Draft Report. The main difference with the common Bylaws provisions is that while the Board could propose a change to this Bylaws provision, SO/ACs could block the proposed change (by a 75% vote). On the other hand any change to Fundamental Bylaws would require approval by SO/ACs (75% vote). One of these provisions requires that ICANN “remains headquartered in the United States of America”. The CCWG noted that this provision exists already in current ICANN Bylaws, at Article XVIII Section 1: “OFFICES. The principal office for the transaction of the business of ICANN shall be in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States of America. ICANN may also have an additional office or offices within or outside the United States of America as it may from time to time establish.” As the rest of Affirmation of Commitments provisions are suggested to be incorporated in the Fundamental Bylaws, the CCWG considered whether this provision should also be listed as a Fundamental Bylaw. The comment by the ASO Representatives was that while the rest of the Affirmation of Commitments provisions incorporated can indeed be seen as fundamental principles, the notion of US Headquarters is an administrative issue, which would not be considered as fundamental. Do you agree with the ASO representatives approach? 4. Appealing Mechanisms The CCWG has proposed enhancements to the two appealing mechanisms described in ICANN Bylaws, i.e. the Independent Review Panel and the Reconsideration process. The ASO representatives commented that, even though the ICANN Board approves its global policies, the processes and forums for bottom-up policy development relating to number resources is outside of ICANN, and there are separate appealing procedures for disputes relating to Internet number resources. In particular there is: 1. an arbitration process described in the ASO MoU for disputes relevant to the Global Policy development process 2. an arbitration process described in the draft Service Level Agreement between the five RIRs and IANA Numbering Services Operator for disputes relevant to the IANA numbering services. 3. A bottom-up process for any concerns that a third party may have relating to Internet number resources issues. Additionally the ASO representatives noted that it was requested by the CWG that decisions regarding ccTLD delegations or revocations would be excluded from standing, until relevant appeal mechanisms have been developed by the ccTLD community, in coordination with other parties. Considering the above, the ASO representatives would propose that any appeal mechanism developed by the CCWG should not cover disputes relating to Internet number resources. 5. Powers The CCWG suggested that the following powers would ensure community empowerment: Reconsider/reject budget or strategy/operating plans (section 5.2 of the Draft Report, pp 47-48) - We would like to note that this power was listed as one of the expected accountability mechanisms by the CWG. - Reconsider/reject changes to ICANN Standard Bylaws (section 5.3 of the Draft Report pp 48-49 - Approve changes to Fundamental Bylaws (section 5.4 of the Draft Report pp 49-50) - Remove individual ICANN Directors (section 5.5 of the Draft Report pp 50-52 - Recall the entire ICANN Board (section 5.6 of the Draft Report pp 52- 53) These powers would be exercised by changing ICANN’s structure into a membership-based organisation, of which the SO/ACs would be the members. Details of this structure can be found in section 5.1.1 of the proposal (pp 42-45). Do you have any concerns or comments on any of these powers or the suggested structure? Thank you, Athina Fragkouli ASO representative to the CCWG-Accountability

1 0