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

Updated 5th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services
by Athina Fragkouli 18 Mar '16

18 Mar '16

Dear Colleagues Please find below the latest NRO announcement regarding the Fifth version of the draft SLA. https://www.nro.net/news/updated-5th-draft-sla-for-the-iana-numbering-servi… Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Head of Legal RIPE NCC ===== UPDATED FIFTH DRAFT SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENT FOR THE IANA NUMBERING SERVICES (SLAv5) AND CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS 17 March 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 A fourth draft of the SLA was published on 25 February and invited ICANN to move forward to signing the SLA. The fourth draft of the SLA is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla-v4 Fifth Draft SLA As a result of ICANN comments on the fourth draft and additional feedback received at meetings during ICANN 55 in Marrakech, a fifth draft of the SLA has been produced and is available at: https://www.nro.net/sla The SLAv5 is open for public comments. Comments can be sent to IANAXFER mailing list at https://www.nro.net/mailman/listinfo/ianaxfer. The deadline for comments is April 15th 2016. For the sake of clarity, you can find a track changes version of SLAv5 against the fourth draft at: https://www.nro.net/sla-track-changes Additionally, a document with the comments on SLAv5 and the legal team responses is available at: https://www.nro.net/slav4-comments In accordance with the transparency commitment to our 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 Fifth Draft SLA The fifth 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 SLAv5 is the result of consideration of public comments received during the public comment period on the second draft SLA,informational meetings with ICANN staff regarding the operational provisions of the SLA, and ICANN’s written comments regarding the third and fourth draft SLA. It is 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 collective actions and responsibilities in its dealings with ICANN under the SLA. It also 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 SLAv5 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, SLAv5, represents a mutually acceptable SLA that is consistent with the principles found within the Internet Number Community proposal. We invite public comments as we approach the final version, which will be signed with ICANN/IANA as part of the IANA Transition planning process and will take effect upon release of their existing agreement with NTIA. _______________________________________________

1 0

How to change the geolocation of my IP's?
by Dmitry Vorozhtsov 17 Mar '16

17 Mar '16

Hello! I’ve got an address block using transfer a few weeks ago. So I tried to change geoloc info and sent a request to MaxMind. Unfortunately, I’ve got a message - «Sorry, we can not accept your request, because location you specified, does not match the data, that we received from this network» I asked once more, but received no answer. I have a record in RIPE DB for this address block. How can I change the geoloc info? Best regards, Dmitry Vorozhtsov

1 0

[training] RIPE NCC Training Courses April-June 2016
by Training Services 29 Feb '16

29 Feb '16

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

1 0

Updated 4th Draft SLA for the IANA Numbering Services
by Athina Fragkouli 25 Feb '16

25 Feb '16

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.

1 0

Draft NCC Services WG Minutes - RIPE 71
by Amanda Gowland 03 Feb '16

03 Feb '16

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.

2 1

Draft Minutes from WG session at RIPE 71
by Kurt Erik Lindqvist 03 Feb '16

03 Feb '16

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.

1 0

RIPE Policy Proposal 2016-01 Affects Legacy Internet Resource Holders
by Marco Schmidt 28 Jan '16

28 Jan '16

Dear colleagues, We just published RIPE Policy Proposal 2016-01, "Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy", to the Anti-Abuse Working Group mailing list. The goal of this proposal is to extend RIPE Document ripe-563, "Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE Database", to Legacy Internet Resource Holders. As this proposal makes reference to the RIPE Policy, "RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders", which was developed by the RIPE NCC Services Working Group, we would like to notify you. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-01 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net> before 26 February 2016. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

[training] RIPE NCC Webinars - new dates
by Training Services 13 Jan '16

13 Jan '16

Dear colleagues, We are pleased to announce the launch of new dates for our Webinars. The RIPE NCC Webinars are live and take only one hour. You can interact with our trainers without leaving your desk. We focus on the topics and issues most important for LIRs. Register now at https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/training/e-learning/webinars Participation is limited to 20 people, so don't hesitate if you want to take part! If you have questions, please email <training(a)ripe.net>. We look forward to seeing you online. Kind regards, RIPE NCC Training Services

1 0

RIPE NCC as escrow
by Max Tulyev 21 Dec '15

21 Dec '15

Hello All! I would like to ask (and may be start a policy proposal) either RIPE NCC has or plan to implement the escrow service for members? People from a lot of countries and companies buy and sell IPv4 address space now. As the price of that resource is high, cost of that deals raise to millions of Euros. So it is a bit scare and even danger to send some millions to some unknown company in doubtful place. Why RIPE NCC? 1. RIPE NCC is exactly that entity who do (or reject to do) the IPv4 transfer. Tha't the main point. RIPE NCC hostmasters using RIPE rules evaluate the request and papers for IP transfer. Most of all escrow companies don't even know what IP address is, and who is wrong or right in potential conflict based on IP transfer. 2. RIPE NCC itself has enough financial resources to garant that type of deals, even if this is several millions of Euros. 3. Unlike any other escrow agencies, RIPE NCC has maximum level of trust at both buying and selling IPv4 parties. How it can be realised? 1. Both parties agrees use RIPE NCC as escrow. 2. (optional) RIPE NCC pre-evaluate transfer request to find common mistakes or problems, like 24-month ban for transfer of already transferred resources, etc. 3. If all seems good for the first view, Buyer sends money to RIPE NCC. 4. RIPE NCC receives money and informs seller about it, and exact amount of money was received. 5. Buyer and Seller signs transfer contract and RIPE NCC hostmasters start to evaluate a transfer request. 6. If transfer fails for any reason (no signed contract, bad papers, etc), RIPE NCC returns payment to the Buyer. If transfer went good, RIPE NCC releases money to the Seller. I believe all members trade their IP resources will be happy to have that service! ;)

7 8

New on RIPE Labs: Keeping the Registry Up to Date in a World of IPv4 Transfers
by Mirjam Kuehne 17 Dec '15

17 Dec '15

Dear colleagues, High quality registry data is important - even more so with the recent increase in address transfers and the exhaustion of the global IPv4 pool. This article explores how we will be enhancing our tools and processes to ensure the RIPE Registry remains up-to-date in this challenging environment: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/matt_parker/keeping-the-registry-up-to-date Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0