Dear colleagues,
Our training team travels the RIPE NCC service region to deliver
training courses to our members without any additional cost.
Over the next few months, we'll be in Budapest, Tirana, Manchester,
Lisbon, Bologna, Munich, Tallinn, Moscow, Vienna, Valletta, Reykjavik.
Visit the following page to register and to check which training courses
we are giving in your area:
https://lirportal.ripe.net/training/courses
The RIPE NCC delivers the following training courses:
- LIR Training Course
- RIPE Database Training Course
- Basic IPv6 Training Course
- DNSSEC Training Course
- 2 days Advanced IPv6 Training Course
- 2 days BGP Operations and Security Training Course
For more information visit:
https://www.ripe.net/support/training/courses
With kind regards,
Rumy Spratley-Kanis
Training Services Manager
Dear Colleagues
Please find below the NRO announcement on the 4th draft Service Level
Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services.
The announcement is available at:
https://www.nro.net/news/updated-4th-draft-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-servi…
Athina Fragkouli
Head of Legal
RIPE NCC
-----------
UPDATED FOURTH DRAFT SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT FOR THE IANA NUMBERING
SERVICES (SLAv4) AND CALL TO ICANN TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SIGNING THE SLA
25 February 2016
Background
On 15 January 2015, the Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal
(CRISP) Team submitted the Internet Number Community Proposal to the
request for proposals issued by the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group
(ICG).
One of the key elements of the Internet Number Community proposal is to
replace the current NTIA IANA agreement with a new contract, a Service
Level Agreement (SLA), between the IANA Numbering Services Operator and
the five RIRs.
A first draft of the SLA was published on 1 May 2015 and opened for
public comments until 14 June 2015. The first draft of the SLA is
available at:
https://www.nro.net/sla-v1
A second draft of the SLA was published on 6 August 2015 and opened for
public comments until 31 August 2015. The second draft of the SLA is
available at:
https://www.nro.net/sla-v2
A third draft of the SLA was published on 30 October 2015 and invited
ICANN legal staff to provide comments by November 30th 2015. The third
draft of the SLA is available at
https://www.nro.net/sla-v3
Fourth Draft SLA
As a result of ICANN comments on the third draft of the SLA and a
clarification call on Tuesday January 26th
(https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2016-February/000725.html) a
fourth draft of the SLA has been produced and available at
https://www.nro.net/sla
For the sake of clarity, you can find a track changes version of SLAv4
against the third draft at:
https://www.nro.net/sla-track-changes
Additionally, a document with the comments on SLAv3 and the legal team
responses is available at:
https://www.nro.net/slav3-comments
In accordance with the transparency commitment with the community, we
share the exchange of a clear track of comments between ICANN and RIR
staff working towards a final SLA document.
About the Fourth Draft SLA
The fourth draft of the SLA has been developed by a team consisting of
individuals from different RIRs. It responds to the principles included
in the Internet Number Community proposal and is based on the already
existing provisions of the NTIA IANA agreement. The content of SLAv4 is
the result of consideration of public comments received during the
public comment period on the second draft SLA as well as informational
meetings with ICANN staff regarding the operational provisions of the
SLA and ICANN’s written comments regarding the third draft SLA. It
remains written in such a way that it can be signed as part of the
implementation of the IANA transition when this occurs or before,
without pre-judging the outcome of the ICG coordinated proposal.
The SLA includes legally important provisions, such as those that
regulate the five RIRs acting together and being responsible
collectively in its dealings with ICANN under the SLA. It includes
background and definitions.
The SLA also includes explanatory footnotes that reference the source of
each article according to the Internet Number Community proposal
principles or the NTIA IANA agreement.
Next Steps
The RIRs thank the community and ICANN staff for its thoughtful comments
and now publish this SLAv4 in the interest of transparency and keeping
the community apprised of progress being made on the SLA. We trust that
all comments and concerns have been addressed and that the current
draft, SLAv4, represents a mutually acceptable SLA that is consistent
with the principles found within the Internet Number Community proposal.
We invite ICANN staff to take the appropriate steps so that we can move
forward with signing of this SLA as soon as possible, preferably during
the ICANN 55 Meeting in Marrakech Morocco.
Hi Kurtis, Bijal,
Hope you're having a relaxing holiday (Bijal especially!). Please find below the draft minutes from your last session.
Please let me know if there are any corrections and if we can publish on the website.
Many thanks,
Amanda
----
RIPE NCC Services Working Group RIPE 71
18 November 2015, 16:00 local time
WG co-Chairs: Kurtis Lindqvist, Bijal Sanghani (absent)
Scribe: Emile Aben
A. Administrative Matters
Kurtis welcomed the room.
B. IANA Update - Elise Gerich (IANA)
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/58-IANA_RIPE_NOV2015.pptx
There were no questions.
C. RIPE NCC Outlook - Axel Pawlik (RIPE NCC)
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/121-RIPE-NCC-Outlook-2015-and-2016.pdf
There were no questions.
D. IETF Endowment Update - Jari Arkko (IETF) and Greg Kapfer (ISOC)
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/106-ripe_bucharest_ietf_endowment_v3.…
Martin Levy (Cloudflare) asked if funding the IETF isn't already done through ISOC.
Greg answered that IETF wants diversification in their funding sources.
Jari acknowledged that.
Martin responded that he doesn't support extra bureaucracy being thrown at anything.
Nurani Nimpuno (Netnod) said she thought it to be a good thing to have diversification of funds, and interprets this proposal as a way of diversification, not necessarily increase of funds.
Salam Yamout (RIPE NCC Executive Board) asked if the IETF is also looking for independence.
Jari stated the goal is to broaden the financial support. The IETF will still need an organisational home.
Greg added that there is a very good working relationship between IETF and ISOC, and stated that the proposal is a long-term endeavour.
Daniel Karrenberg (as private person) asked about transparency in the proposal. He said he finds the current story to vague, and acknowledges IETF does great work. He mentioned ISOC being well funded so this is about ISOC setting priorities, and said that ISOC could put down the endowment itself.
Jari provided details about budget. Regarding ISOC contribution, Jari said that that would likely increase.
Greg detailed current ISOC funding, and said ISOC will always be investing in the IETF.
Leah Symekher (ISC) asked how to expand participation for IETF and how to diversify the participation.
Jari answered that IETF brings in fellows into the IETF meetings for this, and to build on participants who are interested long-term. He said IETF has multiple tools like the mentoring programme at the IETF to bring in new participants.
Mirjam Kuehne (RIPE NCC) said the RIRs contribute membership money into ISOC specifically earmarked to support IETF and wondered what will happen with that.
Greg said it's for IETF operating expenses, which is a different thing from the endowment proposal.
Mohsen Souissi (as private person) asked Greg and Jari to write the proposal up so it's easy to decide on.
Jari said that's a fair request, and will get it done.
E. RIPE NCC Arbiters Process - Ondrej Sury (CZ.NIC) and Wilfried Woeber (University Vienna/ACOnet/VIX)
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/57-Presentation-for-Arbiters-Panel-RI…
Farzaneh Badii (University of Hamburg) asked if arbitration was not enforceable in court.
Wilfried answered that the RIPE NCC doesn't have the mandate to enforce
Farzaneh asked if the artiration then is non-binding.
Wilfried clarified that it is binding for the RIPE NCC, but its no legal mechanism to enforce it in another party in a dispute.
Ondrej thanked the ripe ncc secretariat.
Nurani asked if there is a roll-over procedure for arbiters.
Wilfried clarified that it is the responsibility of the RIPE NCC management or the general meeting, but there is no fixed mandate.
F. RIPE NCC Operational Update - Andrew de la Haye (RIPE NCC)
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/128-COO-Update-final-RIPE71.pdf
Radu-Adrian Feurdean (CCS) asked if the issues that were discussing this morning in the address policy working group should be discussed in the services working group or in the general meeting.
Andrew responded that the general meeting is the right place.
Nigel Titley (RIPE NCC Executive Board) confirmed that.
G. RIPE NCC Services Developments - Alex Band (RIPE NCC)
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/113-ServicesWG-RIPE71.pdf
There were no questions.
H. Open Microphone Session
There were no questions.
All,
please find the draft minutes of the RIPE71 session below. Please send any comments or corrections!
Best regards,
Lindqvist Kurt Erik
kurtis(a)kurtis.pp.se
----
RIPE NCC Services Working Group RIPE 71
18 November 2015, 16:00 local time
WG co-Chairs: Kurtis Lindqvist, Bijal Sanghani (absent)
Scribe: Emile Aben
A. Administrative Matters
Kurtis welcomed the room.
B. IANA Update - Elise Gerich (IANA)
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/58-IANA_RIPE_NOV2015.pptx
There were no questions.
C. RIPE NCC Outlook - Axel Pawlik (RIPE NCC)
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/121-RIPE-NCC-Outlook-2015-and-2016.pdf
There were no questions.
D. IETF Endowment Update - Jari Arkko (IETF) and Greg Kapfer (ISOC)
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/106-ripe_bucharest_ietf_endowment_v3.…
Martin Levy (Cloudflare) asked if funding the IETF isn't already done through ISOC.
Greg answered that IETF wants diversification in their funding sources.
Jari acknowledged that.
Martin responded that he doesn't support extra bureaucracy being thrown at anything.
Nurani Nimpuno (Netnod) said she thought it to be a good thing to have diversification of funds, and interprets this proposal as a way of diversification, not necessarily increase of funds.
Salam Yamout (RIPE NCC Executive Board) asked if the IETF is also looking for independence.
Jari stated the goal is to broaden the financial support. The IETF will still need an organisational home.
Greg added that there is a very good working relationship between IETF and ISOC, and stated that the proposal is a long-term endeavour.
Daniel Karrenberg (as private person) asked about transparency in the proposal. He said he finds the current story to vague, and acknowledges IETF does great work. He mentioned ISOC being well funded so this is about ISOC setting priorities, and said that ISOC could put down the endowment itself.
Jari provided details about budget. Regarding ISOC contribution, Jari said that that would likely increase.
Greg detailed current ISOC funding, and said ISOC will always be investing in the IETF.
Leah Symekher (ISC) asked how to expand participation for IETF and how to diversify the participation.
Jari answered that IETF brings in fellows into the IETF meetings for this, and to build on participants who are interested long-term. He said IETF has multiple tools like the mentoring programme at the IETF to bring in new participants.
Mirjam Kuehne (RIPE NCC) said the RIRs contribute membership money into ISOC specifically earmarked to support IETF and wondered what will happen with that.
Greg said it's for IETF operating expenses, which is a different thing from the endowment proposal.
Mohsen Souissi (as private person) asked Greg and Jari to write the proposal up so it's easy to decide on.
Jari said that's a fair request, and will get it done.
E. RIPE NCC Arbiters Process - Ondrej Sury (CZ.NIC) and Wilfried Woeber (University Vienna/ACOnet/VIX)
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/57-Presentation-for-Arbiters-Panel-RI…
Farzaneh Badii (University of Hamburg) asked if arbitration was not enforceable in court.
Wilfried answered that the RIPE NCC doesn't have the mandate to enforce
Farzaneh asked if the artiration then is non-binding.
Wilfried clarified that it is binding for the RIPE NCC, but its no legal mechanism to enforce it in another party in a dispute.
Ondrej thanked the ripe ncc secretariat.
Nurani asked if there is a roll-over procedure for arbiters.
Wilfried clarified that it is the responsibility of the RIPE NCC management or the general meeting, but there is no fixed mandate.
F. RIPE NCC Operational Update - Andrew de la Haye (RIPE NCC)
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/128-COO-Update-final-RIPE71.pdf
Radu-Adrian Feurdean (CCS) asked if the issues that were discussing this morning in the address policy working group should be discussed in the services working group or in the general meeting.
Andrew responded that the general meeting is the right place.
Nigel Titley (RIPE NCC Executive Board) confirmed that.
G. RIPE NCC Services Developments - Alex Band (RIPE NCC)
The presentation is available at:
https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/113-ServicesWG-RIPE71.pdf
There were no questions.
H. Open Microphone Session
There were no questions.
