Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hello As Nick said, unregistered transfer will become problem on updating "RIPE Database" and as you know the database is main reason of RIRs mission. Also IP is IP and it's now important it's on last /8 or not.All IPs owner should have same right to transfer/re-allocation. On 10/19/2016

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

On 19/10/2016 16:37, Ciprian Nica wrote: Gert, Whatever proposal(s) Ciprian supports considers my vote as a "-1". -Hank > The usual reply when somebody says something here is "shut up" and > "unsubscribe" ? Really ? I think I could talk more freely in Kremlin > than here. > > Yes, the noise is

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

I think these observations are more than reasonable thank you Nick regards Riccardo Il 19/10/2016 11:53, Nick Hilliard ha scritto: Marco Schmidt wrote: We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to before 17 November 2016. The purpose of the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Hello Marius, > Thank you for the explanations, but I believe you haven't really addressed > the issues I mentioned. > The first issue is ABOUT Transfer Policies, to pay the annual membership fee > after you TRANSFER ALL YOUR RESOURCES and maybe even close your Company, is > about Transfer

[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Dear all, I saw a lot of members and/or staff friends supporting one another in judging Ciprian metaphors, hyperbolas and comparisons and no one answering to the FACTS presented by him, and to the real life experienced problems that he raised. Everybody was disgusted when hearing about Hitler,

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Agree with Sascha. -1 for this policy from me. BR, Alexey Galaev +7 985 3608004, http://vpsville.ru - Исходное сообщение - От: "Sascha Luck [ml]" Кому: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Отправленные: Среда, 19 Октябрь 2016 г 17:36:18 Тема: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

I still oppose this proposal. Rationale: 1) It creates yet another class of address space when the goal should be to have only one class. 2) It is potentially harmful to the interests of both the RIPE community and the RIPE NCC by forcing the establishment of an IPv4 "black market", something

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi, On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 05:10:15PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > I was refering to 2015-04 and I was wrong to accuse you of hypocrisy. I > understand now that you don't support the policy change which would "ban" > regular transfer after mergers. To clarify: I neither actively support (=

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi, On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 05:14:38PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > I appologize to Gert, once again. Thanks, apology accepted. So - can we please return to discussing policy, based on the current version of the proposals(!), now? :-) Gert Doering -- list member, no hats -- have you

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi, I was refering to 2015-04 and I was wrong to accuse you of hypocrisy. I understand now that you don't support the policy change which would "ban" regular transfer after mergers. I like the policies as they are and 2015-04 would be great if it would only compact the policies and not bring

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

I accept the warning and I also found about Godwin today. Matbe I should have made a more appropriate comparison. I appologize to Gert, once again. Please take some action against poeple which attack me personally just because they don't like what I say. Or maybe my colour, sexual orientation or

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi, > Op 19 okt. 2016, om 14:59 heeft Peter Hessler het > volgende geschreven: > > Ciprian > > You have invoked Nazis and Hitler in two different emails to this list. > > This is incredibly offensive, for so many reasons. Ok, this is indeed going too far. Time for an

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi, On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 04:28:25PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > I never said Gert did something that was against any policy. Probably he > never did such things. But he clearly took advantage of the merger & > acquisition procedure and now he tries to close it through the policy > 2015-04.

Re: [address-policy-wg] unacceptable conduct and ad-hominem attacks

"Man", If you have something against me, address it personally. You have my e-mail, you know where to find me for the next 10 days. Why do you think it's important for everybody to know that you hate me ? Ciprian On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Enno Rey wrote: > Man, > > not

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Hello Marius, > Over the last years RIPE NCC has imposed a "rule" that when the last IPs are > transferred the transferring LIR has to pay the full annual membership fee > (even if the LIR was not a member of RIPE for that entire year). I think that > if this is something everybody agrees

Re: [address-policy-wg] unacceptable conduct and ad-hominem attacks

Man, not much IP brokerage business to take care of on your desk today? Maybe call some customers? They're probably waiting for that. #justanidea #lifecanbespentinproductivewaystoo cheers Enno On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 04:33:20PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > Maybe this is not a democracy but I

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

The usual reply when somebody says something here is "shut up" and "unsubscribe" ? Really ? I think I could talk more freely in Kremlin than here. Yes, the noise is what Gert did 2 years ago. Let's get over it and discuss what is really important. Please express your support for the two

Re: [address-policy-wg] unacceptable conduct and ad-hominem attacks

Maybe this is not a democracy but I hope most of us try to be as democratic as possible. I was not addressing the person. I like Gert, I like Jim and many other people. I really admire most of them. But this doesn't mean that I should just shut up when I disagree with some ideas. And yes,

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Ciprian Nica, If you have a problem with someone, or claim someone is abusing something take it up with RIPE NCC. NOT THIS LIST! Can you please for now just shut up with your noise? Chair/RIPE NCC/whoever, can someone consider if there is reason to actual give Ciprian a warning and possible

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

+1 > El 19/10/2016, a las 14:27, Wolfgang Tremmel > escribió: > > >> On 19 Oct 2016, at 13:59, Gert Doering wrote: >> >> So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address >> policy WG. > > +1 > > I know Gert now for 15+

Re: [address-policy-wg] unacceptable conduct and ad-hominem attacks

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > > Unsubscribe, shut up, go away... Next time you'll send me to a > concentration camp ? No I WILL NOT SHUT UP ! I will always express my > opinion even if I'm the only one in the world supporting it. A great > romanian

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

No, you are the one wasting my time and if anyone else has something to tell to me I'll be available in Madrid starting tomorrow. Please first read carefully and try to understand what I wrote. I never said Gert did something that was against any policy. Probably he never did such things. But he

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Roger Jørgensen wrote: > > Guess it's a last resort when they see that they are running out of > arguments? And amazing that > some people have turned to "personal" attacks here rather than > discussing the policy at hand. > > > Either way -

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

I'am totally fine with Gert as WG chair. He represent the initial attitude of the RIPE NCC ("serving" the community) much more then the (few?) others on this list which provoke with their new commercial business plans based only on the one fact that IPv4 will run out and therefore could be

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Ciprian, a simple inquiry with the search engine of your choice would have revealed there was a M process involved in the transaction below. Making false accusations is probably even worse then ad hominem attacks. Feel free to reply to me off-list or approach me in Madrid in case you intend to

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

> I guess we need the board of RIPE NCC to once in a while step up and > block things when > they see clear abuse. > Here is the fact: % Version 1 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255" % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-04-17 16:59 % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Jim Reid wrote: >> On 19 Oct 2016, at 13:18, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Gert Doering wrote: ... >>> So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Ciprian You have invoked Nazis and Hitler in two different emails to this list. This is incredibly offensive, for so many reasons. You need to calm down, and think very serious thoughts about your behaviour on this list. Nobody, and certainly NOT Gert or anyone else on a mailing list deserves

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Anno domini 2016 Ciprian Nica scripsit: [...] > Yes, start praising people if that's the purpose of this list. Hitler was > also a very praised man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law Best Max

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

> Yes, start praising people if that's the purpose of this list. Hitler was > also a very praised man. Godwin! Rob

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

As I have mentioned before, getting a /22 only to sell it after a couple weeks shows that it was only requested in order to make some money and not for a real need. It's a small glitch that many took advantage of. Also the merger & acquisition policy at that time suited your interests very well

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

On 19/10/2016 14:59, Gert Doering wrote: > So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address > policy WG. As do I. -Hank > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

> On 19 Oct 2016, at 13:59, Gert Doering wrote: > > So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address > policy WG. +1 I know Gert now for 15+ years and never doubted his integrity. And thanks for still doing the job - I imagine in 20+ years we all will

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

> On 19 Oct 2016, at 13:18, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: > >> So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address >> policy WG. > > Support. And thank you for doing a job that grows more and more > thankless by the day. +100. I’m stunned beyond

[address-policy-wg] unacceptable conduct and ad-hominem attacks

> On 19 Oct 2016, at 12:34, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > But my problem at this point is not with an idea being right or wrong but > with the fact that you are not a fair arbitrer. In your (utterly flawed) opinion. I’m fairly sure the overwhelming majority of the people of

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

* Gert Doering [2016-10-19 14:03]: > So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address > policy WG. Support. And thank you for doing a job that grows more and more thankless by the day. Nothing else to add except that I will mark the day when we run out of

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Greetings! Also -1. I think the current policy that prevents transfers for 24 months is more then enough. There no need to change anything and make live more complex, hard and worse. We already have problems with merges when ripe start to request registry updates and that makes merges between

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

* Gert Doering > I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address policy > WG. +1 Tore

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Nick sums up my opinion admirably. Whilst I have some sympathy with the aim, I do not believe it will achieve it, and there will be some unwarranted side-effects. -1 Do not support as is Ian -Original Message- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi, On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 02:34:40PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > It's a simple question from a member of the community to one of the WG > Chairs: did you abuse the last /8 or not ? Do you consider yourself a > neutral arbitrer or not ? Do you consider yourself the one that should be > judging

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

* Ciprian Nica [2016-10-19 13:36]: > I think this discussion should not be about the right of the majority or > about ignoring the minority. That is nazi thinking. We should discuss and > appreciate ideas to their value. [..] > What I have expressed are my opinions as

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Please be civil Ciprian. This just reads like the standard tactic of throwing mud and hoping it sticks. Ian From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ciprian Nica Sent: 19 October 2016 12:35 To: Gert Doering Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

I think this discussion should not be about the right of the majority or about ignoring the minority. That is nazi thinking. We should discuss and appreciate ideas to their value. But my problem at this point is not with an idea being right or wrong but with the fact that you are not a fair

[address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Dear colleagues, Over the last years RIPE NCC has imposed a "rule" that when the last IPs are transferred the transferring LIR has to pay the full annual membership fee (even if the LIR was not a member of RIPE for that entire year). I think that if this is something everybody agrees with, it

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

> Just for the record: part of the WG Chair's job is to judge the "roughness" > of consensus based on the amount of supporting and opposing voices - both > the number, and the quality of arguments have to be weighted (and to some > extent the person making a certain argument). > I'm certainly not

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

I totally agree with the AS number situation. When I worked for RCS we acquired many companies and although we kept some AS numbers, it really makes no sense in putting a 24 months lock on them. Ciprian On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Plesa Niculae wrote: > Dear colleagues, >

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03/draft Thank you. It's not the case here, but it was the case in the past, that the actual diff and this curated overview differed. This is why I personally

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi On 19 October 2016 at 12:18, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Lu Heng wrote: > [..] > > What I have said is one of the concern that have to be addressd with an > > reasonable counter argument. > > Thanks for the clarification. > > >

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi, On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:00:47PM +0200, Lu Heng wrote: [..] > What I have said is one of the concern that have to be addressd with an > reasonable counter argument. Thanks for the clarification. > Chair's job is not collecting vote but make sure all concerns have been > addressed

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

In the published version at point "B. Impact of Policy on Registry and Addressing System" it just states "After analysing the data that is currently available, the RIPE NCC does not anticipate that any significant impact will be caused if this proposal is implemented." Is it possible that we

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi On 19 October 2016 at 11:48, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:39:10AM +0200, Lu Heng wrote: > > I believe it is an permenent solution to an temporary problem. > > > > Think 5 years from now, after last /8 ran out, will we still care about > it > >

[address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Dear colleagues, Regarding the [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies): The supposed purpose of the policy was to organise more efficiently, in a single document, the rules regarding transfer of resources but it brings a

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Totally agree with Radu. -1 for this policy from me too. Ciprian On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 10:33, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > > Hi. > > > > It is obviously the 99℅ of members want to withdraw this

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Richard Hartmann wrote: > I would once again urge that the default view in the PDP process > should be diffs. While I could find diffs between proposal versions on > the PDP site, there was no obvious way to diff current text against > current proposal version. There were easy-to-follow diffs

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 10:33, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > Hi. > > It is obviously the 99℅ of members want to withdraw this proposal in any > versions, but the NCC strongly moves it forward. May be the NCC has own > reasons to do it, but why it doesn't notice evident things. Except that members

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi All, -1 to this. I think the current policy that prevents tranfers for 24 months is enough. Regards, El 19/10/2016 a las 10:05, Marco Schmidt escribió: Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 3.0 of the policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" have now been

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi I still disagree changing the status of already allocated resources. -1 from me. Regards Patrick On 19.10.2016 10:05, Marco Schmidt wrote: Dear colleagues, The draft documents for version 3.0 of the policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" have now been published,

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi, On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:33:54AM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > It is obviously the 99??? of members want to withdraw this proposal in any > versions, but the NCC strongly moves it forward. May be the NCC has own > reasons to do it, but why it doesn't notice evident things. It would be

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

* Aleksey Bulgakov [2016-10-19 10:36]: > Hi. > > It is obviously the 99℅ of members want to withdraw this proposal in any > versions, but the NCC strongly moves it forward. May be the NCC has own > reasons to do it, but why it doesn't notice evident things. Hi Aleksey,

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi. It is obviously the 99℅ of members want to withdraw this proposal in any versions, but the NCC strongly moves it forward. May be the NCC has own reasons to do it, but why it doesn't notice evident things. 19 Окт 2016 г. 11:05 пользователь "Marco Schmidt" написал: > Dear

[address-policy-wg] nicu...@plesa.ro

nicu...@plesa.ro