-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC has published a new RIPE NCC procedural document: ripe-475, "Independent Internet Number Resources – Contractual Relationship Changes between sponsoring LIR and End User" This document describes the steps to be taken when there are changes in the contractual relationship between the End User of independent Internet number resources and the sponsoring Local Internet Registry (LIR). It also describes the scenarios in which the RIPE NCC may de-register independent Internet number resources and what happens to those resources once they are de-registered. The new document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html Kind regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpfPukACgkQXOgsmPkFrjNlEwCcDtE364DhQCU0USBoK3kJhord yBgAoMbRsLFCStkXfvEaV6Mtm5b2sfxW =fKC3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dear ncc-services-wg, address-policy-wg,
From the document:
[...] 4.2 Violation of RIPE Policy, Law or Contract The RIPE NCC will de-register the independent Internet number resources in case of a fundamental breach of contract by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or Violation of Law by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or violation of RIPE Policy by the End User. [...] IANAL, so please forgive me if this course of inquiry is completely misguided, but does this not explicitly put the validity of resource assignments in the hands of Dutch courts and Dutch prosecutors? RIPE NCC, as an organization domiciled in the Netherlands would at all times have to comply with valid court orders. However, prior to the existence of a direct contractual relationship with end users and this policy, RIPE NCC merely served as a custodian for a database. Challenging the contents of this database would have been a legal adventure. With the introduction of complete contractual chain through RIPE NCC, a LIR, and the end user, combined with this formal explicit policy to which the end user and the LIR must agree - isn't there a potential loophole being created for an enterprising litigant to impose Dutch legislation where it is might be favorable to their cause on foreign end users? Certainly, if this interpretation isn't overly naive, such a loophole was not the intention of policy 2007-01. Has the RIPE NCC received any legal counseling on this matter, and would it be willing to publish the opinion they were provided with? -- Respectfully yours, David Monosov Andrea Cima wrote:
[Apologies for duplicate emails]
Dear Colleagues,
The RIPE NCC has published a new RIPE NCC procedural document: ripe-475, "Independent Internet Number Resources Contractual Relationship Changes between sponsoring LIR and End User"
This document describes the steps to be taken when there are changes in the contractual relationship between the End User of independent Internet number resources and the sponsoring Local Internet Registry (LIR). It also describes the scenarios in which the RIPE NCC may de-register independent Internet number resources and what happens to those resources once they are de-registered.
The new document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html
Kind regards,
Andrea Cima RIPE NCC
David, On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 21:08 +0200, David Monosov wrote:
Dear ncc-services-wg, address-policy-wg,
From the document:
[...]
4.2 Violation of RIPE Policy, Law or Contract
The RIPE NCC will de-register the independent Internet number resources in case of a fundamental breach of contract by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or
Violation of Law by the End User, supported by a Dutch court order; or violation of RIPE Policy by the End User.
[...]
IANAL, so please forgive me if this course of inquiry is completely misguided, but does this not explicitly put the validity of resource assignments in the hands of Dutch courts and Dutch prosecutors?
RIPE NCC, as an organization domiciled in the Netherlands would at all times have to comply with valid court orders. However, prior to the existence of a direct contractual relationship with end users and this policy, RIPE NCC merely served as a custodian for a database. Challenging the contents of this database would have been a legal adventure.
With the introduction of complete contractual chain through RIPE NCC, a LIR, and the end user, combined with this formal explicit policy to which the end user and the LIR must agree - isn't there a potential loophole being created for an enterprising litigant to impose Dutch legislation where it is might be favorable to their cause on foreign end users?
Certainly, if this interpretation isn't overly naive, such a loophole was not the intention of policy 2007-01. Has the RIPE NCC received any legal counseling on this matter, and would it be willing to publish the opinion they were provided with?
All that this says is that the RIPE NCC is bound by Dutch law, which was always the case, with or without a contract. Someone could always take the RIPE NCC to court, in the Netherlands or in any other jurisdiction on the planet that will accept the case. Remember, the point of this endeavor is to identify who is responsible for any given assignment. This should result in less legal pain, not more. -- Shane
At 16:53 16/07/2009 +0200, Andrea Cima wrote: I believe 90 days is not enough time from the time RIPE NCC contacts the end user and for them to decide whether to migrate the resource to a LIR or sign an end user contract with RIPE and do all the paperwork and payments. May I suggest making it 6 months? -Hank
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
[Apologies for duplicate emails]
Dear Colleagues,
The RIPE NCC has published a new RIPE NCC procedural document: ripe-475, "Independent Internet Number Resources Contractual Relationship Changes between sponsoring LIR and End User"
This document describes the steps to be taken when there are changes in the contractual relationship between the End User of independent Internet number resources and the sponsoring Local Internet Registry (LIR). It also describes the scenarios in which the RIPE NCC may de-register independent Internet number resources and what happens to those resources once they are de-registered.
The new document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html
Kind regards,
Andrea Cima RIPE NCC -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkpfPukACgkQXOgsmPkFrjNlEwCcDtE364DhQCU0USBoK3kJhord yBgAoMbRsLFCStkXfvEaV6Mtm5b2sfxW =fKC3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
At 16-7-2009 16:53, Andrea Cima wrote:
[Apologies for duplicate emails]
Dear Colleagues,
The RIPE NCC has published a new RIPE NCC procedural document: ripe-475, "Independent Internet Number Resources Contractual Relationship Changes between sponsoring LIR and End User"
This document describes the steps to be taken when there are changes in the contractual relationship between the End User of independent Internet number resources and the sponsoring Local Internet Registry (LIR). It also describes the scenarios in which the RIPE NCC may de-register independent Internet number resources and what happens to those resources once they are de-registered.
The new document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html
Kind regards,
Andrea Cima RIPE NCC
From the document:
The End User contact email addresses listed in the RIPE Database object are notified by the RIPE NCC [...] I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand on the matter of unilateral contract termination, e-mail notifications are not legally binding by Dutch law. You need certified registered postal mail with proof of delivery. In the case of a network that seized to exist and the resources become void and invalid, e-mail correspondention with that network might not be possible anymore. When applying for resources, one has to submit company registration documents and the corresponding organisation object created at the RIPE database should contain the same data. This data should be sufficient to track down and send out notifications to the correct holder by postal mail. Please consult your legal department on this matter and update the procedures described at the document. With kind regards, Michiel Klaver IT Professional
Hello Michiel, They could first try to receive a response by email. If they don't get that response (and a response that is not from a human person isn't good enough) they could send the papers by postal mail. This way they could try to reduce the costs for the contact. It also depends on when the resources where given to the person/organization using it. Rules regarding emails and legal binding are changing. With kind regards, Mark Scholten -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Michiel Klaver Sent: maandag 27 juli 2009 14:37 To: Andrea Cima Cc: ncc-services-wg@ripe.net; 'Address Policy Working Group' Subject: [address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] New RIPE NCC Procedural Document Available At 16-7-2009 16:53, Andrea Cima wrote:
[Apologies for duplicate emails]
Dear Colleagues,
The RIPE NCC has published a new RIPE NCC procedural document: ripe-475, "Independent Internet Number Resources Contractual Relationship Changes between sponsoring LIR and End User"
This document describes the steps to be taken when there are changes in the contractual relationship between the End User of independent Internet number resources and the sponsoring Local Internet Registry (LIR). It also describes the scenarios in which the RIPE NCC may de-register independent Internet number resources and what happens to those resources once they are de-registered.
The new document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html
Kind regards,
Andrea Cima RIPE NCC
From the document:
The End User contact email addresses listed in the RIPE Database object are notified by the RIPE NCC [...] I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand on the matter of unilateral contract termination, e-mail notifications are not legally binding by Dutch law. You need certified registered postal mail with proof of delivery. In the case of a network that seized to exist and the resources become void and invalid, e-mail correspondention with that network might not be possible anymore. When applying for resources, one has to submit company registration documents and the corresponding organisation object created at the RIPE database should contain the same data. This data should be sufficient to track down and send out notifications to the correct holder by postal mail. Please consult your legal department on this matter and update the procedures described at the document. With kind regards, Michiel Klaver IT Professional
At 16:53 16/07/2009 +0200, Andrea Cima wrote:
[Apologies for duplicate emails]
Dear Colleagues,
The RIPE NCC has published a new RIPE NCC procedural document: ripe-475, "Independent Internet Number Resources Contractual Relationship Changes between sponsoring LIR and End User"
This document describes the steps to be taken when there are changes in the contractual relationship between the End User of independent Internet number resources and the sponsoring Local Internet Registry (LIR). It also describes the scenarios in which the RIPE NCC may de-register independent Internet number resources and what happens to those resources once they are de-registered.
The new document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html
I'd like to once again raise this issue which I did a year ago and did not get sufficient answers. Here are two scenerios that are happening: - scenerio 1: I have marked a resource as "not my end user", yet RIPE responds as follows when I request that they move the resource from my LIR to the new sponsoring LIR: "We haven't received any documentation yet. Please inform the End User of ASxxxxx to ask from their new LIR to submit the transfer request in a new ticket in enduser-contract@ripe.net." I think after a year and about a dozen emails to the old user and the new sponsoring LIR I have gone beyond my responsibility on this matter. What does RIPE intend to do with those resources that the new sponsoring LIR or the end user just can't be bothered to do the registration change? If I mark a resource as "not my end user", why are they asking "please inform the end user..." - scenerio 2: I have marked a resource as "not my end user" and have heard from the end user that they have walked away from the resource. I have requested that RIPE delete this resource yet the answer I get from RIPE is "We did not receive any reply from the End User, so we can not return ASxxxx to the free pool without their confirmation. We will send another reminder to the End User." The end user will never respond since they no longer exist or don't care to respond. At what point will RIPE reclaim the resource? I think there should be clear written procedures for these cases. Regards, Hank
Hi Hank, it seems that you can make a proposal because there is no clear procedure for such scenarios. At the moment I can not see what resources were marked as my end user or not, due to disabled functionality of LIR portal. -- Sergey Monday, June 28, 2010, 5:10:01 PM, you wrote: HN> At 16:53 16/07/2009 +0200, Andrea Cima wrote:
[Apologies for duplicate emails]
Dear Colleagues,
The RIPE NCC has published a new RIPE NCC procedural document: ripe-475, "Independent Internet Number Resources Contractual Relationship Changes between sponsoring LIR and End User"
This document describes the steps to be taken when there are changes in the contractual relationship between the End User of independent Internet number resources and the sponsoring Local Internet Registry (LIR). It also describes the scenarios in which the RIPE NCC may de-register independent Internet number resources and what happens to those resources once they are de-registered.
The new document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html
HN> I'd like to once again raise this issue which I did a year ago and did not HN> get sufficient answers. Here are two scenerios that are happening: HN> - scenerio 1: I have marked a resource as "not my end user", yet RIPE HN> responds as follows when I request that they move the resource from my LIR HN> to the new sponsoring LIR: HN> "We haven't received any documentation yet. HN> Please inform the End User of ASxxxxx to ask from their new LIR to HN> submit the transfer request in a new ticket in HN> enduser-contract@ripe.net." HN> I think after a year and about a dozen emails to the old user and the new HN> sponsoring LIR I have gone beyond my responsibility on this matter. What HN> does RIPE intend to do with those resources that the new sponsoring LIR or HN> the end user just can't be bothered to do the registration change? If I HN> mark a resource as "not my end user", why are they asking "please inform HN> the end user..." HN> - scenerio 2: I have marked a resource as "not my end user" and have heard HN> from the end user that they have walked away from the resource. I have HN> requested that RIPE delete this resource yet the answer I get from RIPE is HN> "We did not receive any reply from the End User, so we HN> can not return ASxxxx to the free pool without their confirmation. HN> We will send another reminder to the End User." HN> The end user will never respond since they no longer exist or don't care to HN> respond. At what point will RIPE reclaim the resource? HN> I think there should be clear written procedures for these cases. HN> Regards, HN> Hank
Dear Hank, Thanks for your email. In answer to your first scenario: In order to move an independent Internet resource assigned to an End User to another sponsoring LIR, the new sponsoring LIR must submit an End User Assignment Agreement and the registration documents of the End User's organisation. This ensures that the new sponsoring LIR and the end user are aware of the changes. This is described in procedure document ripe-475 (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html), 3.1 (Transfer between Sponsoring LIRs). We are aware that this document also states that such requests "must come from either the current or the new sponsoring LIR". However, the old sponsoring LIR only needs to confirm that they agree with these changes. Having a resource marked as "Not My End User" is seen as a confirmation in this case. The RIPE NCC will inform both the former and new sponsoring LIR when the requested updates have been processed. Because the End Users know with which LIR they will sign an agreement, the best option is to have the new sponsoring LIR contact the RIPE NCC and provide the necessary documentation. End Users who are not going to sign an agreement with the current sponsoring LIR are responsible finding a new sponsoring LIR and signing an agreement with that LIR. The new sponsoring LIR then needs to provide the required documents to the RIPE NCC who will evaluate the documentation, approve it and move the resource to the new sponsoring LIR. Resources for which no documentation was submitted at the end of Phase 2 will become part of Phase 3 of the policy implementation where the RIPE NCC will contact the resource holders directly. In answer to your second scenario: If you've marked a resource as "Not my End User" after communicating to the resource holder and informing them that they will need to sign an agreement with a sponsoring LIR of their choice, there is nothing else you have to do. Regarding the resources which are no longer in use, please note that confirmation from the resource holder that they agree to release the resource is still required, especially if it turns out that the resources are actually still in use. Additionally, there might be other reasons why a PI prefix is not visible in the global routing table. If there is no reply from the end user after a certain period of time (90 days), the resources are de-registered. This is described in procedure document ripe-475, 4 (De-registering of Independent Internet Number Resources). As per community feedback received during the recent 2007-01 update presentation at RIPE 60, the RIPE NCC will draft a procedure for Phase 3 of the policy implementation and send it to the RIPE NCC Services Working Group Mailing List before starting the Phase 3 implementation. I hope that this has clarified the matter. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Kind regards, Arne Kiessling IP Resource Analyst RIPE NCC Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 16:53 16/07/2009 +0200, Andrea Cima wrote:
[Apologies for duplicate emails]
Dear Colleagues,
The RIPE NCC has published a new RIPE NCC procedural document: ripe-475, "Independent Internet Number Resources Contractual Relationship Changes between sponsoring LIR and End User"
This document describes the steps to be taken when there are changes in the contractual relationship between the End User of independent Internet number resources and the sponsoring Local Internet Registry (LIR). It also describes the scenarios in which the RIPE NCC may de-register independent Internet number resources and what happens to those resources once they are de-registered.
The new document is available at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html
I'd like to once again raise this issue which I did a year ago and did not get sufficient answers. Here are two scenerios that are happening:
- scenerio 1: I have marked a resource as "not my end user", yet RIPE responds as follows when I request that they move the resource from my LIR to the new sponsoring LIR: "We haven't received any documentation yet. Please inform the End User of ASxxxxx to ask from their new LIR to submit the transfer request in a new ticket in enduser-contract@ripe.net." I think after a year and about a dozen emails to the old user and the new sponsoring LIR I have gone beyond my responsibility on this matter. What does RIPE intend to do with those resources that the new sponsoring LIR or the end user just can't be bothered to do the registration change? If I mark a resource as "not my end user", why are they asking "please inform the end user..."
- scenerio 2: I have marked a resource as "not my end user" and have heard from the end user that they have walked away from the resource. I have requested that RIPE delete this resource yet the answer I get from RIPE is "We did not receive any reply from the End User, so we can not return ASxxxx to the free pool without their confirmation. We will send another reminder to the End User." The end user will never respond since they no longer exist or don't care to respond. At what point will RIPE reclaim the resource?
I think there should be clear written procedures for these cases.
Regards, Hank
At 18:00 29/06/2010 +0200, Arne Kiessling wrote: >Dear Hank, > >Thanks for your email. > >In answer to your first scenario: In order to move an independent Internet >resource assigned to an End User to another sponsoring LIR, the new >sponsoring LIR must submit an End User Assignment Agreement and the >registration documents of the End User's organisation. This ensures that >the new sponsoring LIR and the end user are aware of the changes. > >This is described in procedure document ripe-475 >(http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html), 3.1 (Transfer between >Sponsoring LIRs). We are aware that this document also states that such >requests "must come from either the current or the new sponsoring LIR". >However, the old sponsoring LIR only needs to confirm that they agree with >these changes. Having a resource marked as "Not My End User" is seen as a >confirmation in this case. The RIPE NCC will inform both the former and >new sponsoring LIR when the requested updates have been processed. Because >the End Users know with which LIR they will sign an agreement, the best >option is to have the new sponsoring LIR contact the RIPE NCC and provide >the necessary documentation. > >End Users who are not going to sign an agreement with the current >sponsoring LIR are responsible finding a new sponsoring LIR and signing an >agreement with that LIR. The new sponsoring LIR then needs to provide the >required documents to the RIPE NCC who will evaluate the documentation, >approve it and move the resource to the new sponsoring LIR. > >Resources for which no documentation was submitted at the end of Phase 2 >will become part of Phase 3 of the policy implementation where the RIPE >NCC will contact the resource holders directly. > >In answer to your second scenario: If you've marked a resource as "Not my >End User" after communicating to the resource holder and informing them >that they will need to sign an agreement with a sponsoring LIR of their >choice, there is nothing else you have to do. > >Regarding the resources which are no longer in use, please note that >confirmation from the resource holder that they agree to release the >resource is still required, especially if it turns out that the resources >are actually still in use. Additionally, there might be other reasons why >a PI prefix is not visible in the global routing table. > >If there is no reply from the end user after a certain period of time (90 >days), the resources are de-registered. This is described in procedure >document ripe-475, 4 (De-registering of Independent Internet Number Resources). > >As per community feedback received during the recent 2007-01 update >presentation at RIPE 60, the RIPE NCC will draft a procedure for Phase 3 >of the policy implementation and send it to the RIPE NCC Services Working >Group Mailing List before starting the Phase 3 implementation. Phase 3 was published in August 2010: http://www.ripe.net/news/2007-01-phase3.html Has the RIPE NCC set a timeframe for implementing Phase 3? Regards, Hank >I hope that this has clarified the matter. Please let me know if you have >any further questions. > > >Kind regards, > >Arne Kiessling >IP Resource Analyst >RIPE NCC > > >Hank Nussbacher wrote: >>At 16:53 16/07/2009 +0200, Andrea Cima wrote: >> >>>[Apologies for duplicate emails] >>> >>>Dear Colleagues, >>> >>>The RIPE NCC has published a new RIPE NCC procedural document: >>>ripe-475, "Independent Internet Number Resources Contractual >>>Relationship Changes between sponsoring LIR and End User" >>> >>>This document describes the steps to be taken when there are changes in >>>the contractual relationship between the End User of independent >>>Internet number resources and the sponsoring Local Internet Registry >>>(LIR). It also describes the scenarios in which the RIPE NCC may >>>de-register independent Internet number resources and what happens to >>>those resources once they are de-registered. >>> >>>The new document is available at: >>>http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-475.html >>I'd like to once again raise this issue which I did a year ago and did >>not get sufficient answers. Here are two scenerios that are happening: >>- scenerio 1: I have marked a resource as "not my end user", yet RIPE >>responds as follows when I request that they move the resource from my >>LIR to the new sponsoring LIR: >>"We haven't received any documentation yet. >>Please inform the End User of ASxxxxx to ask from their new LIR to >>submit the transfer request in a new ticket in >>enduser-contract@ripe.net." >>I think after a year and about a dozen emails to the old user and the new >>sponsoring LIR I have gone beyond my responsibility on this matter. >>What does RIPE intend to do with those resources that the new sponsoring >>LIR or the end user just can't be bothered to do the registration >>change? If I mark a resource as "not my end user", why are they asking >>"please inform the end user..." >>- scenerio 2: I have marked a resource as "not my end user" and have >>heard from the end user that they have walked away from the resource. I >>have requested that RIPE delete this resource yet the answer I get from RIPE is >>"We did not receive any reply from the End User, so we >>can not return ASxxxx to the free pool without their confirmation. >>We will send another reminder to the End User." >>The end user will never respond since they no longer exist or don't care >>to respond. At what point will RIPE reclaim the resource? >>I think there should be clear written procedures for these cases. >>Regards, >>Hank
Dear Hank, thank you for your email.
Has the RIPE NCC set a timeframe for implementing Phase 3?
- Phase 2 of the policy implementation is still ongoing and we are receiving the required documentation from LIRs on a daily basis. The RIPE NCC will present more details on the implementation of Phase 3 at RIPE 61. The plan is to start Phase 3 after RIPE 61 and no later than 3 January 2011. Kind regards, Arne Kiessling IP Resource Analyst RIPE NCC Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Phase 3 was published in August 2010: http://www.ripe.net/news/2007-01-phase3.html Has the RIPE NCC set a timeframe for implementing Phase 3?
Regards, Hank
At 16:01 28/10/2010 +0200, Arne Kiessling wrote: Hi again. I'd like to explore again Phase 3. This document is from Aug 2010. Under the timeframes section, there are specific things RIPE NCC would be doing to reclaim resources. Has any of this started? I ask since we had about 5-6 ASNs that were listed as "not our end user" and I now see they no longer appear under our LIR Portal, yet nothing has changed under the ASN object in the RIPE database. Wasn't this supposed to start "no later than 3 January 2011"? Are any statistics available about how many objects are now in this "limbo" state? How much IPv4 address space would RIPE NCC be able to reclaim? Regards, Hank
Dear Hank,
thank you for your email.
Has the RIPE NCC set a timeframe for implementing Phase 3?
- Phase 2 of the policy implementation is still ongoing and we are receiving the required documentation from LIRs on a daily basis.
The RIPE NCC will present more details on the implementation of Phase 3 at RIPE 61. The plan is to start Phase 3 after RIPE 61 and no later than 3 January 2011.
Kind regards,
Arne Kiessling IP Resource Analyst RIPE NCC
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Phase 3 was published in August 2010: http://www.ripe.net/news/2007-01-phase3.html Has the RIPE NCC set a timeframe for implementing Phase 3? Regards, Hank
participants (8)
-
Andrea Cima -
Arne Kiessling -
David Monosov -
Hank Nussbacher -
Michiel Klaver -
Sergey Myasoedov -
Shane Kerr -
Stream Service || Mark Scholten