Who's asking for that? As a business, such an offer only harms me! What LIR do you represent and how many IP have been stolen from you?
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 9:43 AM Viktoriia Opanasiuk < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi All ! > > > > Hi All! > > > > Let me point out what is happening with Ukrainian resources > > transfers. > > > > We are now facing with the hugest government based attack > > against our basic principles of government free self > > regulation. > > > > I think the real target of the attacker is to obtain > > a financial gain from IPv4 market. > > > > First, the deputy of Ukrainian Parliament Olexandr Fedienko > > wrote a letter to RIPE NCC with the initiative of hand-checking > > transfer requests with Ukrainian government agency. This idea > > was not accepted neither by Ukrainian, nor by European > > community. People understand this is a step out from RIPE > > community self-governance and the source of corrupted money for > > this agency as it should decide either pass the transfer or > > not. > > > > After that initiative was rejected, Fedienko with the help of > > his representatives at the RIPE 85 meeting in Belgade tried to > > ban all the transfers outside Ukraine. His representatives > > promoted a set of very expressive and emotional speeches about > > possible forced transfers. He also used his power and pushed > > a set of Ukrainian companies to register online to RIPE 85 (and > > for some reason - for GM, I think he just don't understand the > > difference) and to send a copy-pasted message about support of > > the ban. > > > > The idea is to close the market, limiting the transfers only to > > Ukrainian companies. > > > The proposal is to temporarily deny ALL transfers, inside and outside of > Ukraine, so that all resource holders will remain with what they have, and > nobody could possibly get hold of their resources. > > > > And to buy resources almost for free, as the war pushes people > > to sell it, while the buy offers are very limited. It looks > > logical. But their arguments for the ban are not. > > > This is very hypothetical scenario, based on wrong assumption, described > one paragraph above. > > And even if that assumption would not be wrong, it is quite unrealistic > that Ukrainian companies that maintain infrastructure and struggle to > rebuild networks on destroyed or de-occupied territories are going to sell > their IP addresses to get some profit - they do not have enough of them > already, how are they going to get more? > > On the other hand, there is quite real scenario for companies whose > business is based on re-selling IP addresses or providing "services" of > moving resources out of Ukraine, including the one that Max Tulyev > announced just several days ago ( > https://www.facebook.com/mt6561/posts/pfbid0273c1ndwbZXBLc9ST7sFwisCC9o8Bw9Yhs8vAUfX1e9HP5UmQexvUCbnGp8RtQVvFl > ). > > Such businesses will not thrive if the transfers will be frozen. > > Of course, these companies are also part of the RIPE community. But the > community could choose what values it supports. > > > > They said they need the whole-Ukrainian ban to protect > > resources at the distressed areas against the forced transfer. > > > > First, while RIPE NCC accepts "documents" issued on the > > occupied territories based on LPR/DPR/Russian jurisdiction, > > this ban of Ukrainian resources transfer can be easily avoided > > just using these "documents". Including for the real forced > > transfers. > > > It isn't clear what is the problem you describe here. > However, it is a problem that many companies from those territories are > registered by RIPE NCC based on registration papers issued either by russia > or dnr/lnr, and therefore might not be seen as Ukrainian. > Ideally RIPE NCC should block transfers of companies registered on the > whole internationally recognized territory of Ukraine, including all > occupied territories. > > > > Second, it is nothing to do with Ukrainian companies based on > > the territories not in the distress area. From the war front > > line to for example Uzhgorod city there are ~800km and 2000m > > high mountains. Why should we complicate the life for these > > companies? > > > For someone who fled the country it might seem that there are distressed > areas and areas "behind high mountains". But the reality in Ukraine is that > the whole country is distressed. There are companies registered in what you > describe as "safe areas", but they have representatives on all territory of > the country, including occupied areas. Or the head of a company in the > "safe" territory could have relatives who are under occupation. In all such > cases they could be threatened and forced to sign transfer documents. > > > > Third, it is unclear why transfers inside Ukraine should not be > > banned for the time the policy is being updated. If we really > > have the problem, it is logical to ban all transfers. > > > Again, the proposal is to temporarily hold all transfers of Ukrainian > holders. > > > > Forth, I asked many times to show any example of the forced > > transfer in the distress area. They can't. I did not hear any > > of these situations myself. So for me the problem they are > > trying to solve did not even exist. > > > > This situation with the possible country-wide transfer ban rose > > a big discussion in Telecom Ukraine telegram channel, which is > > a discussion point for a lot of (but not all) Ukrainian > > Internet and telecom companies. > > > > Instead of explaining things for my requests, Olexandr Fedienko > > call me there a hidden Russian FSB agent, and Olena Kushnir > > said I do not understand that "we should keep a valuable > > resource inside our country during the war". But sorry, these > > are definitely not their resources! So they should not tell > > holders what to do with it, until we are not live in > > a Communist country where all things belongs to the government. > > > > This situation makes deeply concern Ukrainian community and > > resources holders. We are really afraid some of this proposals > > will be implemented without consensus inside Ukrainian > > community, just because of government letters, emotional > > speeches. And definitely without any "closed meetings" (C) > > Olena Kushnir with NCC staff inaccessible for people with > > another opinion. > > > > It will be so kind if RIPE NCC officials release a statement > > where they clearly state they will not implement any bans for > > resource holders not in the distress area. And any changes on > > the policy will be implemented with the current policy > > development process, consensus, and in the co-operation with > > all community. This will calm down the situation and will > > convince people that NCC really respects and protects the > > interests of the community members. > > > > Thank you very much for the long reading! > > > > And in the end it will be better if we focus our efforts on solving the > problem, and not on writing a hypothetical stories. The discussion should > be constructive and effective. > Thanks. > > Viktoriia Opanasiuk > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ncc-services-wg >
-- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ncc-services-wg
