<div class="gmail_quote">2008/12/11 <<a href="mailto:address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net">address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net</a>> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to <a href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit <a href="http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg" target="_blank">http://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg</a> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to <a href="mailto:address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net">address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net</a> You can reach the person managing the list at <a href="mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net">address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net</a> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork (John L. Crain) 2. 2008-05 Revised/New Discussion Phase set (Anycasting Assignments for TLD's and Tier 0/1 ENUM) (Antoin Verschuren) 3. Re: 2008-05 Revised/New Discussion Phase set (Anycasting Assignments for TLD's and Tier 0/1 ENUM) (Leo Vegoda) 4. New paper on RIRs by Internet Governance Project (Milton L Mueller) 5. DRAFT: allocating resources to the RIPE NCC (Remco van Mook) 6. Re: 2008-05 Revised/New Discussion Phase set (Anycasting Assignments for TLD's and Tier 0/1 ENUM) (Jeffrey A. Williams) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: "John L. Crain" <<a href="mailto:john.crain@icann.org">john.crain@icann.org</a>> To: Sander Steffann <<a href="mailto:sander@steffann.nl">sander@steffann.nl</a>>, Shane Kerr <<a href="mailto:shane@time-travellers.org">shane@time-travellers.org</a>> CC: "<a href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a>> Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:58:16 -0800 Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IPv6 assignment for the RIPE meetingnetwork Hi folks, One other way that this could be handled is to ask one of the other RIRs to assess the resource request. I'm trying to remember how we did this in the past with IPv4, am sure Daniel remembers, but I think we asked IANA to chec= k the assignment. Any of the other RIRs will have Hostmasters or Resource Analysts that are highly familiar with the RIPE area policies. I would advise against making anything more cumbersome than it needs to be. Am sure the other RIRs have the same issue and a simple policy of review by another RIR would solve the issue for all. John On 08/12/2008 05:21, "Sander Steffann" <<a href="mailto:sander@steffann.nl">sander@steffann.nl</a>> wrote: > Hello Shane, >> I'd just like to mention as a tiny historical note, that the RIPE NCC >> was founded in part to organise RIPE meetings. >> >> Look at 3.3 of the first RIPE NCC Activity Plan: >> >> <a href="ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-035.txt" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-035.txt</a> >> > Thank you for the reference. >> The conflict of interest having the RIPE NCC evaluate it's own request f= or >> resources is real, but I think we must all admit totally symbolic. We're >> talking about very small blocks here, so seriously considering the idea = of >> incorporating a new company to fill out some paperwork makes me wonder i= f I'm >> about to see a rabbit with a stopwatch running past >> declaring "I'm late, I'm late!". (*) > :-) > > All the paperwork needs to be correct though, so we need an official way > to give the NCC resources. Remco van Mook suggested a solution > (<a href="http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00=" target="_blank">http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00=</a> 745.h > tml) > and offered to try to write a formal policy proposal > (<a href="http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00=" target="_blank">http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00=</a> 823.h > tml). > > I think this is the best way forward and we should give Remco some time > to work on that policy proposal. > Sander > --__--__-- Message: 2 Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2008-05 Revised/New Discussion Phase set (Anycasting Assignments for TLD's and Tier 0/1 ENUM) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:21:40 +0100 From: "Antoin Verschuren" <<a href="mailto:Antoin.Verschuren@sidn.nl">Antoin.Verschuren@sidn.nl</a>> To: <<a href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a>> PDP Number: 2008-05 Anycasting Assignments for TLD's and Tier 0/1 ENUM While I strongly support the proposal for more than 1 anycast assignment per TLD/ENUM tier1 operator, I do have some problems with the definition of the ENUM tier1 operators. Where it says: "ENUM operators as defined by the ITU" I think it should say: "ENUM tier0/1 operators as defined by RIPE NCC" I wouldn't want the ITU to determine who should get address space, and the counterpart for IANA in the ENUM space is RIPE NCC. I see the ITU more in the role ICANN has with regards to TLD's, or perhaps even the US DOC. Antoin Verschuren Technical Policy Advisor SIDN Utrechtseweg 310 PO Box 5022 6802 EA Arnhem The Netherlands T +31 26 3525500 F +31 26 3525505 M +31 6 23368970 E <a href="mailto:antoin.verschuren@sidn.nl">antoin.verschuren@sidn.nl</a> W <a href="http://www.sidn.nl/" target="_blank">http://www.sidn.nl/</a> --__--__-- Message: 3 From: Leo Vegoda <<a href="mailto:leo.vegoda@icann.org">leo.vegoda@icann.org</a>> To: "<a href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a>> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:08:42 -0800 Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-05 Revised/New Discussion Phase set (Anycasting Assignments for TLD's and Tier 0/1 ENUM) Hi, I'm happy to see the removal of an external reference in this policy proposal. The current policy refers to the 'IANA Administrative Procedure for Root Zone Name Server Delegation and Glue Data'. It's possible that a change to that document could have a knock-on effect on RIPE policy. As such, I'm glad to see a change to self-contained policy. Regards, Leo Vegoda --__--__-- Message: 4 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:13:18 -0500 From: Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>> To: <<a href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a>> Subject: [address-policy-wg] New paper on RIRs by Internet Governance Project ------_=_NextPart_001_01C95AD9.D45EE8D6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Regional Address Registries, Governance and Internet Freedom =20 Abstract: Regional Internet Address Registries (RIRs) are private, nonprofit and transnational governance entities that evolved organically with the growth of the Internet to manage and coordinate Internet Protocol addresses. The RIR's management of Internet address resources is becoming more contentious and more central to global debates over Internet governance. This is happening because of two transformational problems: 1) the depletion of the IPv4 address space; and 2) the attempt to introduce more security into the Internet routing system. We call these problems "transformational" because they raise the stakes of the RIR's policy decisions, make RIR processes more formal and institutionalized, and have the potential to create new, more centralized control mechanisms over Internet service providers and users. A danger in this transition is that the higher stakes and centralized control mechanisms become magnets for political contention, just as ICANN's control of the DNS root did. In order to avoid a repeat of the problems of ICANN, we need to think carefully about the relationship between RIRs, governments, and Internet freedom. In particular, we need to shield RIRs from interference by national governments, and strengthen and institutionalize their status as neutral technical coordinators with limited influence over other areas of Internet governance. =20 Download: <a href="http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/RIRs-IGP-hyderabad.pdf=20" target="_blank">http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/RIRs-IGP-hyderabad.pdf=20</a> =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C95AD9.D45EE8D6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" = xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" = xmlns=3D"<a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" target="_blank">http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40</a>"> <head> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Dus-ascii"> <meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)"> <style>  </style> </head> <body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple> <div class=3DSection1> face=3D"Times New Roman">Regional = Address Registries, Governance and Internet Freedom<o:p></o:p> style=3D'font-size: 10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p> face=3D"Times New Roman"> style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-weight:bold; font-style:italic'>Abstract: size=3D2><span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-style:italic'>Regional Internet Address = Registries (RIRs) are private, nonprofit and transnational governance entities that evolved organically with the growth of the Internet to manage and = coordinate Internet Protocol addresses. The RIR’s management of Internet = address resources is becoming more contentious and more central to global = debates over Internet governance. This is happening because of two transformational problems: 1) the depletion of the IPv4 address space; and 2) the attempt = to introduce more security into the Internet routing system. We call these problems “transformational” because they raise the stakes of = the RIR’s policy decisions, make RIR processes more formal and institutionalized, and have the potential to create new, more = centralized control mechanisms over Internet service providers and users. A danger = in this transition is that the higher stakes and centralized control mechanisms = become magnets for political contention, just as ICANN’s control of the = DNS root did. In order to avoid a repeat of the problems of ICANN, we need to = think carefully about the relationship between RIRs, governments, and Internet freedom. In particular, we need to shield RIRs from interference by = national governments, and strengthen and institutionalize their status as neutral technical coordinators with limited influence over other areas of = Internet governance.<o:p></o:p> face=3D"Times New Roman"> style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-style:italic'><o:p> </o:p></fo= nt> face=3D"Times New Roman">Download: <a href=3D"<a href="http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/RIRs-IGP-hyderabad.pdf" target="_blank">http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/RIRs-IGP-hyderabad.pdf</a>">http://= <a href="http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/RIRs-IGP-hyderabad.pdf" target="_blank">internetgovernance.org/pdf/RIRs-IGP-hyderabad.pdf</a></a> <o:p></o:p> face=3D"Times New Roman"> style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p> </div> </body> </html> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C95AD9.D45EE8D6-- --__--__-- Message: 5 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:05:43 +0100 From: "Remco van Mook" <<a href="mailto:Remco.vanMook@eu.equinix.com">Remco.vanMook@eu.equinix.com</a>> To: <<a href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a>> Subject: [address-policy-wg] DRAFT: allocating resources to the RIPE NCC Dear all, Please find below my first attempt at a policy for allocating resources to the NCC. I think it should be a separate ripe document. Please let me know what you think and where it needs some more polishing. I want to publish the formal proposal soon, so the policy can potentially be adopted well in time for the next RIPE meeting.=20 Best, Remco Number: (assigned by the RIPE NCC) Policy Proposal Name: Allocating resources to the RIPE NCC=09=20 Author:=20 name: Remco van Mook email: <a href="mailto:remco@eu.equinix.com">remco@eu.equinix.com</a> organisation: Equinix Proposal Version: 1.0 Submission Date: TBD =09=20 Suggested RIPE WG for discussion and publication: address policy =09=20 Proposal Type: new Policy Term: permanent =09 Summary of proposal:=20 This proposal sets the way in which the RIPE NCC can get resources allocated to itself.=09=20 Policy text:=20=09 Current (if modify): none New: Abstract: This document describes how the RIPE NCC can get resources allocated to itself. 1.0 Introduction The RIPE NCC is an independent association and serves as one of five Regional Internet Registries (RIRs). Its service region incorporates Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia. The RIPE NCC is responsible for the allocation and assignment of Internet Protocol (IP) address space, Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) and the management of reverse domain names within this region.=20 1.1 Scope This document describes the policy for allocating resources to the RIPE NCC. This policy applies to all resources, current and future, allocated to the RIPE NCC, its subsidiaries or affiliates. This document does not describe any specific resource or a policy restricted to a specific resource; it does however impact how the resource-specific policies should be interpreted when applied to the RIPE NCC as the entity requesting resources. This document does not describe or impact any policy where it is applied to regular LIRs. 2.0 RIPE NCC as a resource-holder Any resources allocated to the RIPE NCC will be registered in the RIPE database under the LIR identity of 'eu.ripencc'. All policies set for allocating resources to LIRs apply equally to the RIPE NCC. RIPE NCC as a resource holder should fulfill the same basic requirements that are also expected of normal LIRs, such as returning unused resources. Since the RIPE NCC cannot sign a contract with itself, the requirement for an explicit contract as set by various policies does not apply for this particular case. While the RIPE NCC will still handle the administrative tasks involved with allocating resources itself, it will not evaluate the validity of their own requests.=20 3.0 Pool of Arbiters Defined in ripe-174, the pool of Arbiters has been appointed by the RIPE NCC Executive Committee (and approved by the AGM). The arbiters function is to mediate in a conflict between the RIPE NCC and one of its members. In addition to executing the RIPE NCC Conflict Arbitration Procedure, the pool of arbiters will also evaluate the validity of all requests for resources made by the RIPE NCC.=20 4.0 Evaluating a request The evaluation of an allocation request made by the RIPE NCC will be done by a team of at least 3 of the arbiters. The arbiters will respond to any new request within one month. For the purpose of evaluating, the request will be treated as if it was filed by a normal LIR. If the request is approved, the resources will then be allocated by the RIPE NCC and registered in the RIPE database. 5.0 Conflict resolution Should the pool of arbiters reject a request, or if the request cannot be granted by applying the standard LIR policies, the RIPE NCC can file a request to the RIPE plenary meeting to have its case heard. It is then up to the RIPE plenary to decide whether the request should be granted or not. At no point can the RIPE NCC allocate resources to itself without prior consent of either the pool of arbiters or the RIPE plenary. Rationale: All resource-holders in the RIPE NCC service area are now being required to have a contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC, directly or indirectly. There is however one entity that cannot sign a contract with the RIPE NCC - the NCC itself. This policy cleans up the current variety in which the NCC has allocated resources to itself and sets a standard way for the RIPE NCC to get further resources allocated. For all means and purposes the RIPE NCC will be treated as a LIR and will follow the same policies as a LIR; however the role the RIPE NCC has in analysing and evaluating any request by an LIR is instead done by members of the pool of arbiters. Arguments supporting the proposal Currently there is no standard way for the RIPE NCC to get resources allocated. This has so far led to an inconsistent picture between the various resource types; a lot of ad hoc policies and exemptions. This needs to be cleaned up. One way to look at it is that every single resource allocated to the RIPE NCC is a conflict of interest between the RIPE NCC and ALL of its members. Therefore it makes sense that the same people who arbitrate conflicts between RIPE NCC and its members evaluate the requests for resources as filed by the RIPE NCC. Arguments opposing the proposal=20 None. This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidia= ry companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains infor= mation which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for t= he use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error,= please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europ= e Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Stree= t, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. = 6293383. --__--__-- Message: 6 Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:10:11 -0800 From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <<a href="mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com">jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com</a>> Organization: IDNS and Spokesman for INEGroup To: Antoin Verschuren <<a href="mailto:Antoin.Verschuren@sidn.nl">Antoin.Verschuren@sidn.nl</a>> CC: <a href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-05 Revised/New Discussion Phase set (Anycasting Assignments for TLD's and Tier 0/1 ENUM) Antoin and all, Good point. I certainly wouldn't want the ITU doing so either. But you know that there are some that are yet again pushing the ITU as having some sort of authority, however defined, to make such determinations... Antoin Verschuren wrote: > PDP Number: 2008-05 > Anycasting Assignments for TLD's and Tier 0/1 ENUM > > While I strongly support the proposal for more than 1 anycast assignment > per TLD/ENUM tier1 operator, I do have some problems with the definition > of the ENUM tier1 operators. > > Where it says: > > "ENUM operators as defined by the ITU" > > I think it should say: > > "ENUM tier0/1 operators as defined by RIPE NCC" > > I wouldn't want the ITU to determine who should get address space, and > the counterpart for IANA in the ENUM space is RIPE NCC. > I see the ITU more in the role ICANN has with regards to TLD's, or > perhaps even the US DOC. > > Antoin Verschuren > > Technical Policy Advisor > SIDN > Utrechtseweg 310 > PO Box 5022 > 6802 EA Arnhem > The Netherlands > > T +31 26 3525500 > F +31 26 3525505 > M +31 6 23368970 > E <a href="mailto:antoin.verschuren@sidn.nl">antoin.verschuren@sidn.nl</a> > W <a href="http://www.sidn.nl/" target="_blank">http://www.sidn.nl/</a> Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail <a href="mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com">jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com</a> My Phone: 214-244-4827 End of address-policy-wg Digest </blockquote></div> -- Thanks & Regards, Arun Kaushik.