- ncc-services-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [ncc-services-wg] 2018-05 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Legal Address of Internet Number Resource Holder)
by Sascha Luck [ml] 28 Sep '18

28 Sep '18

All, On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 03:10:46PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > Dear colleagues, > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-05, "Publication of Legal +Address of > Internet Number Resource Holder", is now available for +discussion. I really wish these announcements included the text of the proposal to make it easier to address it without having to copy&paste the meat of the proposal into the response. as for the proposal: - this proposal ignores completely the fact that not all resource holders are companies. - publishing the "legal" address details of natural persons likely conflicts with the GDPR for the EU and quite possibly with national data protection regs in the non-EU service region. - The "legal registered address" of a company will only rarely have anything to do with the location of their network management. In fact it often is no more than a lawyer's or accountant's office. This is even more true where a business has many locations for network administration. I'll address arguments as they pertain to legal persons exclusively below as I think the civil rights of *natural* +persons override any and all arguments you could make here. specific arguments: > To make it more difficult for malicious actors to hijack block +of > IP addresses and therefore play a preventive role in protecting > the community against malicious actors; Please provide reasoning how this would be achieved. I see no logical route to this assertion. > Assisting businesses, consumer groups, healthcare organizations > and other organisations combating fraud (some of which have > mandates to electronically save records) to comply with +relevant > legal and public safety safeguards; Please provide exactly which legal requirements and public safeguards require a central, PUBLIC, database of all resource holder address details. > Competent authorities to serve legal process to the party > responsible for the resources; Competent authorities already have a route to this information via the RIPE NCC or via national companies' reg offices. > To reduce delays in serving legal process, avoiding lost leads > and evidence. "Delays" such as having to procure a warrant for this data or having to look a business up in the national companies' office databases? > The RIPE Database is made for technical troubleshooting and not > for legal purposes. > Counter-argument: In the wake of large-scale cyber incidents, > there is a strong need to enhance cross-border cooperation > related to preparedness. Responding to cybersecurity incidents > may take many forms, ranging from identifying technical +measures > which may entail two or more entities jointly investigating the > technical causes of the incident (e.g. malware analysis) or > identifying ways through which organisations may assess whether > they have been affected (e.g. indicators of compromise), to > operational decisions on applying such measures and, +ultimately, > to be able to reach out across different jurisdictions in a +fast > fashion. Every national registry has different rules, languages > and formats. The availability of the data clustered in one DB > with one format will help for troubleshooting. Again, I cannot see the logic behind the assertion that a PUBLIC database of legal registered company addresses, insofar as it doesn't already exist in most jurisdictions, solves any problem related to technical troubleshooting. I'm sure in only the tiniest minority of cases will the lawyer or company secretary this address points to be able to, or even know whom to ask for, help with technical troubleshooting. > The information will become out of date if the RIPE NCC can't > ensure current accuracy. > Counter-argument: Information is the lifeblood of organisations > such as the RIPE NCC. Impure data is like impure blood > �\200\223 +not > good for the system. The quality of data held in IT systems +will > deteriorate unless steps are taken to maintain its accuracy and > consistency. This is not an argument, it is merely a re-statement of the position that data quality is important. Also, while everyone who knows me will know that I am the last person to demand political correctness in debate; I do question the need for the language and rhetoric of "Mein Kampf" in a policy proposal. > Therefore, it is of utmost importance to keep data +qualitatively > accurate. Poor data quality can lead to organisations taking > decisions based on inaccurate or out-of-date in-formation, > potentially with expensive consequences. see above, not an argument, just restatement. > The achievements don't justify the needed efforts/costs. > Counter-argument: Network and information systems and services > play a vital role in society. Their reliability and security +are > essential to economic and societal activities and in particular > to the functioning of modern societies and economies. A culture > of security is being shared across sectors which are vital for > our economy and society and will have to comply with the +security > and notification requirements being discussed in the RIPE NCC > service region. Again, the "counter-argument" is a boiler-plate politcal +statement and does not address the the effort/cost argument against. For the avoidance of doubt, the above constitutes opposition to this proposal. Kind Regards, Sascha Luck > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments +to > <ncc-services-wg(a)ripe.net> before 26 October 2018. Hereby done.

2 1

Re: [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2018-05 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Legal Address of Internet Number Resource Holder)
by Jonathan Leroy - Inikup 27 Sep '18

27 Sep '18

Le jeu. 27 sept. 2018 à 15:09, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net> a écrit : > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2018-05, "Publication of Legal Address of > Internet Number Resource Holder", is now available for discussion. > > The goal of the proposal is for the RIPE NCC to publish the validated > legal address information of holders of Internet number resources. > > You can find the full proposal at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-05 Is the goal of this proposal to force ressources holders to publish a postal address matching the one specified in public records (e.g. registry of commerce), or to make the RIPE NCC validate the postal address submitted by the ressource holder (by sending a postal mail)? -- Jonathan Leroy

1 0

Draft Agenda RIPE77 - NCC Services Working Group
by Bijal Sanghani 26 Sep '18

26 Sep '18

Dear all, Below and shortly online you can find the NCC Services working group draft agenda, any additions or comments please let us know. Best regards, NCC Services working group chairs === Date: Wednesday 17 October 2018 Time: 16.00 - 17.45 Chair: Kurtis Lindqvist Co-Chair: Bijal Sanghani A. Administrative Matters (5 minutes) Welcome Select a scribe Finalise agenda Approve minutes from RIPE 76 https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/services/minutes/ripe-ncc-services… <https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/services/minutes/ripe-69-ripe-ncc-…> B. RIPE NCC Update Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) C. RIPE Community Project Fund TBC, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) D. RIPE NCC Operational Update Felipe Victolla Silveira, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) E. Training Services Credentialing Initiative Rumy Kanis, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) F. Policy Proposal - Publication of Legal Address of Internet Number Resource Holders Sara Veronica Marcolla, Europol (15 minutes) G. Open Microphone Session (5 minutes) Z. Closing

1 0

Call for Agenda Items RIPE77 - RIPE NCC Services WG
by Bijal Sanghani 11 Sep '18

11 Sep '18

Dear NCC-Services WG, RIPE77 is a few months away and we’re putting together the agenda for the working group. If you would like to suggest a topic for discussion or have a presentation you have or would like to see presented please get in touch with the working group chairs at ncc-services-wg-chairs(a)ripe.net <mailto:ncc-services-wg-chairs@ripe.net>. Remember, this is your opportunity to let the RIPE NCC know what you want from them :) Best regards, RIPE NCC Services WG Chairs

1 0

Re: [ncc-services-wg] #107164 - Re: [usersnap][ripe-database] - Syncupdates during "domain" object creation or update check are caching DN[...]
by Daniel Suchy 02 Aug '18

02 Aug '18

Hello, that doesn't make any sense. In reported case, zone delegation was just missing on authoritative nameserver. After issue was fixed at DNS server, *your* server was still caching *negative* answer and refusing object creation (even zone was created on our nameserver). There's no reason to simulate "client behavior" by caching some results locally (and delay object creation just due to that). Current behavior leads to false-positives during object creation/update and causes misleading error messages for web-updates end-users. DNS servers should be queried always directly while checks are performed during object creation/update to provide accurate (real) data. >From my perspective this is a bug in current implementation of DNS-related checks at NCC side. With regards, Daniel On 08/02/2018 02:16 PM, RIPE NCC Support wrote: > ##- Please type your reply above this line -## > > Ticket (107164) has been updated. To add additional comments, reply to > this email. > > *Anand Buddhdev* (RIPE NCC Support) > > Aug 2, 14:16 CEST > > Hi Daniel, > > Some checks query DNS servers directly, but others use a caching > resolver (especially checks that resolve name server names to IP > addresses). This simulates the behaviour of a client more accurately. > There is no way around this, except to wait for the TTL of the old > records to expire, and then you can try to create or update your domain > object again. > > Regards, > Anand Buddhdev > RIPE NCC > > This email is a service from RIPE NCC Support. > [3QKYYW-RE09]

2 1

RIPE76 Draft NCC Services WG Minutes
by Bijal Sanghani 24 Jul '18

24 Jul '18

Dear All, The draft minutes from the NCC Services WG at RIPE76 are now available online at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/services/minutes/ripe-ncc-services… Please feel free to send comments to either myself, Kurtis or the mailing list. Kind regards, Bijal Sanghani NCC Services WG Co-chair

1 0

Implementation plan and dates for NWI5 - Out-of-region ROUTE(6) objects and removal of ASN authorisation for ROUTE(6) object creation.
by Nathalie Trenaman 19 Jul '18

19 Jul '18

Dear colleagues, In February 2018, the RIPE Database Working Group reached consensus on NWI-5 - creating out of region ROUTE(6) objects in the RIPE Database. We will soon be making changes to the way out-of-region objects are handled in the RIPE Database. It's important that database users are aware of these changes and what they mean: 1. The RIPE Routing Registry will no longer support the creation of out-of-region ROUTE(6) and AUT-NUM objects 2. Existing out-of-region objects will have their "source:” attribute changed to "RIPE-NONAUTH” 3. The creation of ROUTE(6) objects will no longer need authorisation from the ASN holder We will implement these changes in the Release Candidate environment on Thursday, 2 August and go to full production on Tuesday, 4 September. Our implementation plan can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/impact-analysis-for-nwi-5-imple… <https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/db/impact-analysis-for-nwi-5-imple…> The RIPE Database Working Group chairs also wrote a RIPE Labs article that describes the background of NWI-5: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/out-of-region-route-6-and-aut-num-objec… <https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/out-of-region-route-6-and-aut-num-objec…> <https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/out-of-region-route-6-and-aut-num-objec… <https://labs.ripe.net/Members/denis/out-of-region-route-6-and-aut-num-objec…>> Please contact ripe-dbm(a)ripe.net <mailto:ripe-dbm@ripe.net>. if you still have questions after reading the implementation plan. Best regards, Nathalie Trenaman Product Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Proposal 2018-04, "PDP Clarification" in Review Phase
by Bijal Sanghani 05 Jul '18

05 Jul '18

Dear all, A quick note to let you know proposal 2018-04, "PDP Clarification" is now in Review Phase and open for discussion on the RIPE Discussion mailing list. If you would like more information please take a look at the proposal and provide your feedback to <ripe-list(a)ripe.net <mailto:ripe-list@ripe.net>> before 17 July 2018, you can find the proposal here - https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2018-04 Kind regards, Bijal Sanghani RIPE NCC Services WG Co-Chair

1 0

Draft Agenda RIPE76 - NCC Services Working Group
by Bijal Sanghani 16 May '18

16 May '18

Dear all, Below and shortly online you can find the NCC Services working group draft agenda, any additions or comments please let me know. Best regards, NCC Services working group chairs === Date: Wednesday 16 May 2018 Time: 16.00 - 17.45 Chair: Kurtis Lindqvist Co-Chair: Bijal Sanghani A. Administrative Matters (5 minutes) Welcome Select a scribe Finalise agenda Approve minutes from RIPE 75 https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/services/minutes/ripe-75-ripe-ncc-… <https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/services/minutes/ripe-69-ripe-ncc-…> B. RIPE NCC Update Axel Pawlik, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) C. Knowing our Members and building communities Hisham Ibrahim, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) D. RIPE Community Project Fund Alastair Strachan, RIPE NCC (15 minutes) E. GDPR Implementation at the RIPE NCC Maria Stafyla, RIPE NCC (20 minutes) F. RIPE NCC Arbitration Procedures Arbiter Name, RIPE NCC Arbiter (15 minutes) G. Open Microphone Session (5 minutes) Z. Any other business

1 1

Feature request: publishing abstracts for accepted submissions for the RIPE events
by Artyom Gavrichenkov 09 May '18

09 May '18

Hi all, During a call for papers for each meeting organized by RIPE NCC, a speaker is expected to provide an abstract for each submission of a plenary talk. These abstracts are then evaluated by the corresponding programme committee. They serve a purpose of providing an outline of the presentation, key points and topics covered in the talk. E.g. sometimes the title of a submission isn't in any way self-explanatory, but the abstract helps the programme committee members to quickly get an idea of what's going to be presented and whether it is relevant to the interests of the community. However, these abstracts are not published together with the agenda, they aren't even available in the mailing list -- though even that would be sort of suboptimal in my opinion, but anyway -- they're just getting lost forever. I believe it would be much appreciated by the audience if those abstracts for accepted submissions are published on the Web site of a meeting together with plenary agenda. A title itself often doesn't tell the audience a lot about the content of the talk, while an abstract certainly does. Say, once we had a submission for the ENOG meeting -- accepted later for no less than an opening plenary session -- called "Operating a secure network" -- go figure! NANOG meetings, APRICOT and other conferences do maintain a policy of publishing this ahead of an event, along with the agenda. Maybe there's a solid reason why NCC avoids doing that? I don't know, but I'll be glad to figure out. Any opinions on this one? | Artyom Gavrichenkov | gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191 | mailto: ximaera(a)gmail.com | fb: ximaera | telegram: xima_era | skype: xima_era | tel. no: +7 916 515 49 58

3 2