- ripe-list - mailman.ripe.net

New on RIPE Labs: NOGs in the RIPE NCC Service Region
by Mirjam Kuehne 13 Feb '18

13 Feb '18

Dear colleagues, We asked the Network Operators Groups in our service region about how they are organised, funded and run. Find out on RIPE Labs what we learned: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/fergalc/nogs-in-the-ripe-ncc-service-region Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

1 0

NRO EC and ASO AC Joint Response to the 2017 Independent ASO Review Recommendations
by Antony Gollan 12 Feb '18

12 Feb '18

This message is sent on behalf of the Number Resource Organization (NRO). In 2017, the Number Resource Organization (NRO) engaged ITEMS International to conduct the second independent review of the Address Supporting Organization (ASO). The objective of this review was to determine whether the ASO has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure, whether any change in structure or operations of the ASO would be desirable to improve its effectiveness in the ICANN structure, and additionally whether the ASO is sufficiently accountable to the Internet number community when carrying out its responsibilities. The result of the ASO Review was published in August 2017, and has been considered by the NRO Executive Council (NRO EC) and by the ASO Address Council (ASO AC). While the final outcome of the Review will be determined through community-wide consultations, the NRO EC and ASO AC have prepared this response to 18 recommendations of the Review Report, including our recommended next steps for addressing each. Recommendation # 1: ICANN should consider updating its Bylaws to reflect the fact that the NRO will, like the GAC, and according to the ASO MoU, provide its own review mechanism for the review of ASO. We recommend proceeding on Recommendation 1. Recommendation # 2: The NRO should consider updating the ASO MoU to reflect the fact that the appropriate section of the New ICANN Bylaws regarding Organizational Reviews is Section 4.4 (previously Article IV, Section 4). We recommend proceeding on Recommendation 2. Recommendation # 3: The NRO should adopt a procedure for conducting periodic reviews of the ASO in line with processes used by the ICANN Organizational Effectiveness Committee. We recommend proceeding on Recommendation 3. Recommendation # 4: The signatories of the ASO MoU should consider updates to the MoU including i) the addition of AFRINIC as a signatory, ii) the removal of Appendix B. iii) updates in connection with the responsibilities of the ASO as a Decisional Participant in the ICANN Empowered Community. We recommend proceeding on i) the addition of AFRINIC as a signatory and ii) the removal of Appendix B. We do not recommend proceeding on iii) updates in connection with the responsibilities of the ASO as a Decisional Participant in the ICANN Empowered Community, as such updates would be duplicative of information already contained in ICANN Bylaws. Recommendation # 5: Upon completion of every independent review of the ASO, the NRO and ICANN should initiate discussions, as per Article 9 of the MoU, to examine results and consequences of their cooperation. The parties should determine if the ASO has a continuing purpose within the ICANN structure, and re-evaluate the MoU accordingly. We recommend proceeding on Recommendation 5. Recommendation # 6: The ASO AC should ensure that procedures are developed for Steps 12, 15 and 16 of the GPDP as described in Attachment A of the ASO MoU. We recommend that the ASO AC should work on the “agreed procedures” referred to in steps 12 and 15 of the GPDP. We recommend that the NRO EC should work on the agreement referred to in step 16 of the GPDP. Recommendation # 7: The ASO should consider the adoption of a single, authoritative description of the GPDP for global numbering policies. The same description of the GPDP should appear in Attachment A of the ASO MoU and the relevant section of the Operating Procedures of the ASO AC (Currently Section 6). We consider that there is the two documents serve different purposes and do not conflict. Attachment A of the ASO MoU is the authoritative definition of the Global Policy Development Process. Section 6 of the ASO AC operation procedures gives more detail about how the ASO AC will implement the GPDP. We suggest asking the ASO AC to edit their operating procedures to clarify the relationship between the GPDP and the operating procedures. Recommendation # 8: With a view to increasing awareness regarding the mission, main operations, and separation of roles between the ASO AC and the NRO EC within the ASO, the NRO should consider the use of more infographics on its website. We agree to consider the use of more infographics on its website. Recommendation # 9: The ASO AC should implement term limits for the positions of Chair and Vice-Chair. We refer recommendation 9 to the ASO AC for their consideration. Recommendation # 10: The ASO AC should ensure that the duties of the Address Council Chair and the Address Council Vice-Chairs need to be added to the ASO AC Operating Procedures. We refer recommendation 10 to the ASO AC for their consideration. Recommendation # 11: The ASO AC should ensure that its internal procedure for the removal of an ICANN Board Director is consistent with Section 7.11 of the New ICANN Bylaws. We agree that there is a need to update procedures for removal of an ICANN Board Director, and note that this may need procedural changes by both the ASO AC and the NRO NC, in view of the NRO’s role in the ICANN Empowered Community. We also note that there are concerns about whether ASO AC members acting in good faith would be indemnified by ICANN, the NRO, or the RIRs. Recommendation # 12: The ASO should establish the NRO Executive Secretary as the ASO Point of Contact (PoC). The ASO AC should establish procedures for forwarding communications to appropriate parties within the ASO. As included in recommendation 12, we agree to review the contact points and procedures for reaching relevant parties in the ASO and NRO. We do not recommend proceeding with establishing the NRO Secretariat as the ASO contact point, but instead recommends reviewing and establishing clear contact points and procedures as appropriate. Recommendation # 13: The ASO MoU should be updated to reflect the new reality of the Empowered Community and specify that the roles and responsibilities within the ASO must be clearly defined. We believe that the Empowered Community is out of the scope of the ASO review, and that updating the MoU is not appropriate as the updates would be duplicative of information already contained in ICANN Bylaws. Recommendation # 14: The ASO AC should either confirm that the designated representative of the ASO on the Empowered Community Administration will be the Chair of the NRO EC, or develop a procedure for appointing another representative. We confirm that the Chair of the NRO EC (or an alternative representative as selected by the NRO EC when necessary) is the Designated Representative of the ASO. The NRO EC is the appropriate body to define the appointment process (rather than the ASO AC) because the Empowered Community is not an ICANN body but a separate organization. Recommendation # 15: ASO AC meetings should be open to the public, except for discussions regarding the selection of individuals for ICANN roles. We refer recommendation 15 to the ASO AC for their consideration. Recommendation # 16: For its internal communications, and for most matters related to the operations of the ASO, the ASO should favour the use of a publicly archived mailing list. In exceptional circumstances, for issues (e.g. Board appointments) that cannot be discussed in public, a non-publicly archived list should be used. We believe that recommendation intends ASO AC when it notes ‘…the ASO should favour the use of a publicly archived mailing list’. We therefore refer recommendation 16 to the ASO AC for their consideration. Recommendation # 17: In the interests of transparency, the ASO website should be updated with recent presentations, contact details and an archive of the activities of both the ASO AC and NRO EC. We recommend proceeding on Recommendation 17. Recommendation # 18: The NRO should initiate a public consultation, involving the five RIR communities, to determine the future structure of the ASO. We agree that “The NRO should initiate a public consultation, involving the five RIR communities, to determine the future structure of the ASO”. You can find this announcement on the NRO website: https://www.nro.net/nro-ec-and-aso-ac-joint-response-to-the-2017-independen… Regards Antony Gollan Communications Specialist RIPE NCC

1 0

IANA Numbering Services Review Committee seeks input - 30-day public comments period
by Nurani Nimpuno 09 Feb '18

09 Feb '18

Dear colleagues, As you may be aware, as a result of the successful IANA Stewardship transition [1] in 2016, the IANA Numbering Services are today being managed through an SLA between ICANN and the five RIRs. IANA Numbering Services Review Committee ---------------------------------------- The Internet Number Community, produced a proposal [2] on the IANA Stewardship transition, outlining the concept of such an SLA [3]. The proposal also called for the establishment of an IANA Numbering Services Review Committee (IANA RC) [4] to advice and assist the RIRs in the review of the IANA Numbering Services. The IANA RC was established in 2016 and is composed of representatives from each RIR region. IANA Numbering Services Performance ----------------------------------- The IANA services are today provided by Public Technical Identifiers (PTI) [5] which as of March 2017, publishes monthly performance reports on the IANA Numbering Services: https://www.iana.org/performance/numbers Based on these monthly performance reports, the five RIRs have produced an 2017 IANA Performance Matrix Summary Report (for the period of March - December 2017): https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/IANA-RC-Annual-Summary-Matrix.pdf The IANA RC report ------------------ The IANA RC will publish an annual report as advice to the NRO EC with its evaluation of the IANA Numbering services. The report will be based on the IANA Performance Matrix Summary Report, as well as any input gathered on the performance from the global number community. 30-day public comment period ---------------------------- As part of the open, transparent, and bottom-up spirit of the number community, the IANA RC is launching a public comment period of 30 days, seeking any comments or input from the community on the IANA numbering services performance. The IANA RC encourages all members of the Internet number community to review the public IANA Performance Matrix Summary Report. Comments on the IANA service performance should be sent to: <iana-performance(a)nro.net> The public comment period ends on Sunday 11 March at 23:59 UTC. Next steps ----------- All public comments will be published on the IANA RC website, and will be considered as input to the final report by the IANA. At the end of the 30-day public comment period, the IANA RC will meet and evaluate all input to the final report. The IANA RC report will be published on the IANA RC website: https://www.nro.net/iana-numbering-services-review-committee/ Best regards, Nurani Nimpuno, IANA RC chair Jason Schiller, IANA RC vice-chair -- References: ----------- [1] IANA Stewardship Transition Archive https://www.nro.net/iana-oversight/archive/ [2] Number Community Proposal https://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/ICG-RFP-Number-Resource-Proposal.pdf [3] The SLA for the IANA Numbering Services https://www.nro.net/updated-5-2-and-signature-version-of-the-sla-for-the-ia… [4] IANA Numbering Services Review Committee https://www.nro.net/iana-numbering-services-review-committee/ [5] Public Technical Identifiers (PTI) https://pti.icann.org Further reading: ---------------- Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal Team (CRISP Team) https://www.nro.net/nro-and-internet-governance/iana-oversight/consolidated… IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) https://www.ianacg.org Proposal to Transition the Stewardship of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-transition-proposal-final.p…

1 0

RACI: Apply Now!
by Gergana Petrova 31 Jan '18

31 Jan '18

Dear colleagues, The RIPE Academic Cooperation Initiative (RACI) is again looking for talented academics in the field of Internet technology. Successful applicants receive complimentary tickets, travel and accommodation to the meetings and the opportunity to present their research. If you are working on something interesting, please apply! If you know someone in your network who is, please forward them this message. https://www.ripe.net/raci --------------------- Application deadlines --------------------- MENOG 18 (25-26 April, Tehran): apply by 25 February RIPE 76 (14-18 May, Marseille): apply by 4 March ENOG 15 (4-5 June, Moscow): apply by 4 March SEE 7 (18-19 June, Timisoara): apply by 4 March At ENOG 15 you can present in either Russian or English. --------------------------- Examples of relevant topics --------------------------- - Network measurements and analyses - IPv6 deployment - BGP routing - Network security - Internet governance - Peering and interconnectivity - Internet of Things ------------------------------------------------- Get the latest news on RACI and Internet research ------------------------------------------------- - Subscribe to the RACI mailing list: https://www.ripe.net/raci/mailing-list - Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/raci_ripe - Join our group on LinkedIn: http://www.ripe.net/raci/linkedin Please let me know if you have any questions. Have a lovely day! Best regards, Gergana -- Gergana Petrova External Relations RIPE NCC

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: Selecting Projects for the RIPE NCC Community Project Fund
by Mirjam Kuehne 30 Jan '18

30 Jan '18

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC Community Projects Fund provided EUR 250,000 in 2017 to support projects of value to the Internet's operation and resilience. Getting such a monumental project right relies on the work of the selection committee who are tasked with making sure only the most worthy projects receive support. Please read on RIPE Labs who they are and the process they went through: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/alastair_strachan/selecting-projects-for-the-… Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

1 0

[news] RIPE Policy Proposals - January Update
by Marco Schmidt 29 Jan '18

29 Jan '18

Dear colleagues, Here is our monthly overview of open policy proposals and their stage in the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP). If you wish to join the discussion about a particular proposal, please do so on the relevant working group mailing list. Proposals Open for Discussion: 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification" 2017-02, "Regular abuse-c Validation" Proposal Overview: PROPOSAL: 2016-04, "IPv6 Sub-assignment Clarification" OVERVIEW: The goal of this proposal is to re-define the term "sub-assignment" for IPv6. RIPE NCC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Explains feasibility and possible side effects. STATUS: Last Call WHERE TO COMMENT: Address Policy Working Group: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net DEADLINE: 13 February 2018 FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-04 PROPOSAL: 2017-02, "Regular abuse-c Validation" OVERVIEW: The goal of this proposal is to give the RIPE NCC a mandate to regularly validate "abuse-mailbox:" information and to follow up in cases where contact information is deemed incorrect. RIPE NCC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Provides details how the RIPE NCC will validate the technical parameters of "abuse-mailbox:" attributes. STATUS: Review Phase WHERE TO COMMENT: Anti-Abuse Working Group: anti-abuse-wg(a)ripe.net DEADLINE: 16 February 2018 FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-02 The RIPE NCC provides an overview of current RIPE Policy Proposals here: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/current-proposals/current-policy-… We look forward to your involvement in the PDP. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

1 0

New on RIPE Labs: How We Deployed DMARC
by Mirjam Kuehne 26 Jan '18

26 Jan '18

Dear colleagues, We were asked to update mailman so it can support DMARC. To that end, we decided to build our own RPM package. In this article on RIPE Labs we describe how we did this and what we learned in the process: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/sjoerd/how-we-deployed-dmarc Kind regards, Mirjam Kühne RIPE NCC

1 0

Proposal for a full-time position for the RIPE Chair
by Erik Bais 24 Jan '18

24 Jan '18

Dear RIPE community members and RIPE Exec Board, As proposed during the GM in Dubai, I would like to discuss if it is possible to change the Chair position of RIPE into a full-time paid position. I would like to explain why this might be good for the community and my thinking behind it. As one might expect, being a RIPE chair, requires a huge amount of spare/private and vacation time and an employer (if not self-employed) that would see the value or benefit of employing the RIPE Chair.. and there is the ‘stress’ especially if it is busy at the office (day-job) and seeing issues that would demand your attention, with a community with its huge size … Currently it is my expectation that the RIPE chair position is consuming more than 14 weeks of work in its current way how Hans-Petter is running the position. And that is currently unpaid … Obviously not everything is covered in this by his vacation days .. and it is not that he is sitting idle on his hands at his day job. If the RIPE Chair position would be a full time position, it would allow the RIPE chair to attend more regional NOG meetings, member lunches, other RIR meetings or ICANN meetings or help with more Governance discussions with the various Governments that require our communities perspective. Or talks about GDPR or alike … It would be good for the community if the RIPE Chair would and could position/voice the community view, which may or may not be similar or be voiced differently in meetings with governments or ICANN meetings, apart from the view of the RIPE NCC itself. The RIPE community currently doesn’t have its own Governing entity .. we say, we are the community .. but the community doesn’t have its own entity. What I would propose, is to setup a separate entity … with a small separate board. The RIPE Community board role would be to act as a management oversight.. they would be make sure that the finances of the new RIPE Community entity are in balance and to assist with possible Chair rotations ( interviews for future candidates etc. ) but also act as peers in discussions for the Chair in certain more delicate situations / discussions that the Chair might face) Obviously should the finances in consolidated form, be open for the community. Currently we have a great Chair.. and I think Hans Petter is doing a stellar job, but it is my question if this particular point should be updated. And I think it should. What I like to see is that the Chair position is going to be funded by a 6 year grant from the membership fees via the RIPE NCC. And the position itself would be for an initial 5 year with 1 optional renewal of 5 year by RIPE Community Board approval. So a max of 10 years in total for the position per named person (Chair). The idea behind the 6 year rolling grant, is to make sure that the RIPE Chair will never get in a position where the RIPE NCC might cut the funding because of unpopular decisions towards the RIPE NCC. If the Chair (after being a Chair for 10 years) is rotated, I think the former Chair should have no problem getting another position, if one of his primary roles is to network or communicate with members in the community. His/her role should provide sufficient connections for other activities after the RIPE Chair position. As a Community, we have a voice and the community makes policy. And the RIPE NCC is the company that operates based on the guidance of those policy on behalf of the community and its members. I would personally like to see the community and membership, be embedded in the new RIPE community setup. If that would also mean that the new RIPE Community entity should hold (/obtain) the RIPE NCC (company) shares, is something that I like the Exec Board to discuss. How this should be setup in the governance model, is something I would like to ask the Exec Board to provide in a proposal, once the discussion looks positive … From a cost perspective, it is my expectation that it would be about 25 to 35 euro per LIR per year … While we look at a refund of 300 euro per year per LIR because of the budget surplus … I don’t think that the cost are going to be an issue. Regards, Erik Bais

7 9

Call for presentations RIPE 76
by Benno Overeinder 23 Jan '18

23 Jan '18

Dear colleagues, Please find the CFP for RIPE 76 below or at: https://ripe76.ripe.net/submit-topic/cfp/. The deadline for submissions is *11 March 2018*. Please also note that speakers do not receive any extra reduction or funding towards the meeting fee at the RIPE Meetings, see the "Speakers" paragraph in CFP for more information. Kind regards, Benno Overeinder RIPE PC Chair https://ripe76.ripe.net/ripe-pc/ -------------------->>><<<-------------------- Call for Presentations A RIPE Meeting is an open event where Internet Service Providers, network operators and other interested parties get together. Although the meeting is mostly technical, it is also a chance for people to meet and network with others in their field. RIPE 76 will take place from 14-18 May in Marseille, France. The RIPE Programme Committee (PC) is now seeking content proposals from the RIPE community for the plenary sessions, BoFs (Birds of a Feather sessions), panels, workshops, tutorials and lightning talks at RIPE 76. See the full descriptions of the different presentation formats, https://ripe76.ripe.net/submit-topic/presentation-formats/. Proposals for plenary sessions, BoFs, panels, workshops and tutorials must be submitted for full consideration no later than *11 March 2018*. Proposals submitted after this date will be considered depending on the remaining available space in the programme. The PC is looking for presentations covering topics of network engineering and operations, including but not limited to: - IPv6 deployment - Managing IPv4 scarcity - Data centre technologies - Network and DNS operations - Internet governance and regulatory practices - Network and routing security - Content delivery - Internet peering and mobile data exchange - Connected Things (aka. Internet of Things - IoT) Speakers Presenters, RIPE Working Group Chairs and the RIPE Programme Committee are required to cover their own costs to attend a RIPE Meeting (meeting ticket, travel and accommodation). We have various ticket options available depending on your needs. In extraordinary circumstances, the RIPE Chair can waive the meeting fee for presenters. These requests are dealt with on a case-by-case basis via pc(a)ripe.net. Also note that, on an individual basis, participants can apply for a RIPE Fellowship to develop their professional or academic career. For more information, please visit: https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/ripe-fellowship Submissions Presenters should be clear on whether they wish to submit a presentation for a plenary or working group (WG) session. At present, most working groups will solicit policy proposals, discussion points or other content directly via their mailing lists. If you’re not sure what kind of session you should be presenting at, please visit: https://ripe76.ripe.net/plenary-or-wg/ RIPE Meeting attendees are quite sensitive to keeping presentations non-commercial, and product marketing talks are strongly discouraged. Repeated audience feedback shows that the most successful talks focus on operational experience, research results, or case studies. For example, presenters wishing to describe a commercial solution should focus on the underlying technology and not attempt a product demonstration. Presenters should indicate how much time they will require. In general, the time allocated for the different presentation formats is as follows: - Plenary presentations: 20-25 minutes presentation with 5-10 minutes discussion - Tutorials: up to two hours (Monday morning) - Workshops: one hour (during evening sessions) to two hours (Monday morning) - BoFs: approximately one hour (during evening sessions) - Lightning talks: 10 minutes total for both presentation and any discussion The following general requirements apply: - Proposals must be submitted using the meeting submission system, https://ripe76.ripe.net/submit-topic/ - Lightning talks should also be submitted using the meeting submission system (https://ripe76.ripe.net/submit-topic/) and can be submitted any time up to and including the meeting week. The allocation of lightning talks will be announced on short notice, in some cases on the same day but often one day prior to the time slot allocated. - Presenters who propose a panel or BoF are encouraged to include speakers from several (perhaps even competing) companies and/or a neutral facilitator. - All presentation proposals will only be considered by the PC if they contain at least draft presentation slides (slides may be updated later on). For panels, proposals must contain a clear description, as well as the names of invited panellists, presenters and moderators. If you have any questions or requests concerning content submissions, please email pc(a)ripe.net. -- Benno J. Overeinder NLnet Labs https://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

1 0

Follow up on the Dubai AGM - RIPE WG Chair meeting vouchers
by Erik Bais 19 Jan '18

19 Jan '18

Dear RIPE Community members, During the RIPE GM in Dubai, I raised the question if it is possible to provide the WG (co-) Chairs, with a free meeting voucher for the RIPE meeting. As some of you know, the WG Chairs are present on almost all RIPE meetings, but there is no compensation of any kind for any of the work they put into running the meeting, minutes, agenda’s etc. The only ‘benefit’ of picking up the WG Chair hat … is a WG Chair lunch somewhere during the RIPE meeting … and most of the RIPE WG’s are pretty active and do require actual time and work in order to prepare and keep the WG running between the RIPE meetings. I asked the Executive Board during the GM, if it is possible to add a RIPE meeting voucher for the RIPE WG Chairs as compensation. Every new LIR is getting 2 free vouchers for the RIPE meeting. I think it would be a small gesture to provide the RIPE WG Chairs with a RIPE Meeting ticket for the meeting that they attend as RIPE WG Chair. Intention: If a new WG Chair is selected, he/she will receive a voucher for the next RIPE meeting once the new set of RIPE free ticket spam is being send around the opening of the registration for the next meeting. It is not the intention to get/provide a credit for the meeting that the person is already attending and get selected as a Chair. ( to keep things simple. ) Regards, Erik Bais

13 21