[address-policy-wg] Working group chair selection process
Hi Working Group, We finally have a final draft for the working group chair selection process. Sorry for taking so long. Here is the text we propose to use: --- The RIPE Address Policy Working Group aims to maintain a team of two Chairpersons whenever possible. # Electing a chairperson Once a year one of the chairs will step down, allowing new candidates the opportunity to become chair. The chairs take turns stepping down, and this is announced to the working group mailing list at least one month before the start of a RIPE meeting. The working group will select new chair(s) at the RIPE Address Policy Working Group session. Those present at the session, either in person or remotely, will determine by consensus among themselves who takes the available position(s). The remaining chair will determine whether consensus has been reached. If the working group finds itself without a chair the RIPE chair will determine consensus. If no consensus can be reached then a secret ballot to elect the new chair(s) will be held at the working group session. Everyone physically present at the session can participate in the secret ballot. Votes will be counted by RIPE NCC Staff, and the result will be determined using proportional representation through the single transferable vote, otherwise known as PR-STV. The winner(s) of the secret ballot will become the new chair(s). # Running for chairperson Anybody is allowed to volunteer for a vacant chair position, including former chairs. Those who volunteer to chair the RIPE Address Policy Working Group should be aware of the responsibilities and work this involves. A description of the responsibilities of a RIPE working group chair can be found in Working Group Chair Job Description and Procedures (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-542). # Removing a chairperson When a significant number of participants in the working group are unsatisfied with a particular chair, and this cannot be resolved by discussion within the working group, they can call for a vote of no confidence. The vote must be requested on the mailing list at least one week before a RIPE meeting. The vote will be resolved using a secret ballot, which will be held at the working group session. Everyone physically present at the meeting can participate. The votes will be counted by RIPE NCC Staff and the result is determined by simple majority. If the vote is passed the chair who is the subject of the vote will step down immediately. --- We're doing a two-week last-call on this (ending on Friday 3 April) and if there are no objections we will use this process starting at RIPE70 in Amsterdam. Cheers, Sander Gert The current APWG chairs
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Dear all For 2015, all RIPE NCC members are charged an annual service fee of € 1,600 for each LIR account they hold. For New LIRs that are established during the year, the service fee is applied pro rata, meaning thus that new LIRs established during the course of 2015, are charged as follow: New LIR established:Total fee: How the fee is made up: * during first quarter € 3,600Sign up fee (€ 2,000) + service fee (€ 1,600) * during second quarter € 3,200Sign up fee (€ 2,000) + service fee (€ 1,200) * during third quarter € 2,800Sign up fee (€ 2,000) + service fee (€ 800) * during fourth quarter € 2,400Sign up fee (€ 2,000) + service fee (€ 400) I hope this clarifies the question. best regards Sonia Garbi Gomez Finance Manager RIPE NCC
[address-policy-wg] aggregating unused allocations
Hello Recently my company got a /22 allocation through the well known transfer procedure between LIR's. In the past we also got the /22 we qualify from RIPE NCC's last /8. This /22 was put aside for future use. For aggregation purposes we asked RIPE NCC to return both /22 and get back a /21 but according to current policies this is forbidden. Since global routing table has exceeded 50 prefixes and expected to grow more maybe RIPE community should rethink permitting the exchange of smaller IPv4 blocks with contiguous one. Regards Antonis Lioumis
Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment ofTransfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Hi Sonia, those numbers were quite clear. What we were wondering is whether it is possible to register an LIR in Q4 2015, pay the €2400, receive the /22, transfer the /22, close the LIR within the same quarter. Or, does the LIR need to pay the fee for a whole year (4 quarters) when they close (or transfer the /22) - regardless on which Q they were opened? Regards, Elvis On 19/03/15 10:02, Sonia Garbi Gomez wrote: Dear all For 2015, all RIPE NCC members are charged an annual service fee of € 1,600 for each LIR account they hold. For New LIRs that are established during the year, the service fee is applied pro rata, meaning thus that new LIRs established during the course of 2015, are charged as follow: New LIR established:Total fee: How the fee is made up: * during first quarter€ 3,600 Sign up fee (€ 2,000) + service fee (€ 1,600) * during second quarter € 3,200 Sign up fee (€ 2,000) + service fee (€ 1,200) * during third quarter € 2,800 Sign up fee (€ 2,000) + service fee (€ 800) * during fourth quarter € 2,400 Sign up fee (€ 2,000) + service fee (€ 400) I hope this clarifies the question. best regards Sonia Garbi Gomez Finance Manager RIPE NCC -- http://v4escrow.net Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Executive Officer Email: el...@v4escrow.net mailto:el...@v4escrow.net US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.
Re: [address-policy-wg] aggregating unused allocations
Hi Antonis - On 19.03.2015 09:54, Antonis Lioumis wrote: Recently my company got a /22 allocation through the well known transfer procedure between LIR's. In the past we also got the /22 we qualify from RIPE NCC's last /8. This /22 was put aside for future use. For aggregation purposes we asked RIPE NCC to return both /22 and get back a /21 but according to current policies this is forbidden. Since global routing table has exceeded 50 prefixes and expected to grow more maybe RIPE community should rethink permitting the exchange of smaller IPv4 blocks with contiguous one. how about sending text for a policy (change) in this respect? :-) Cheers, Carsten
Re: [address-policy-wg] aggregating unused allocations
For reference, in the ARIN region we just got rid of our aggregation policy because it was almost never used, and staff had identified a loophole where a large address holder could have requested a large aggregation block, exhausted the free pool, and then taken their time about returning the smaller blocks. If you want to implement an aggregation policy in RIPE, it's probably worth taking the ARIN experience into account and drafting the policy to deal with those issues. -Scott On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:07 AM Carsten Schiefner ripe-wgs...@schiefner.de wrote: Hi Antonis - On 19.03.2015 09:54, Antonis Lioumis wrote: Recently my company got a /22 allocation through the well known transfer procedure between LIR's. In the past we also got the /22 we qualify from RIPE NCC's last /8. This /22 was put aside for future use. For aggregation purposes we asked RIPE NCC to return both /22 and get back a /21 but according to current policies this is forbidden. Since global routing table has exceeded 50 prefixes and expected to grow more maybe RIPE community should rethink permitting the exchange of smaller IPv4 blocks with contiguous one. how about sending text for a policy (change) in this respect? :-) Cheers, Carsten
