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

2017-02-07 Thread Erik Bais - A2B Internet
Hi Gert, I know you well enough to not take this personal and if you are not responding to me on a couple nudges, you must have a good reason for it. Thank you for the work and lets get started on the last call on this. Regards, Erik Bais > Op 7 feb. 2017 om 17:02 heeft Gert Doering

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

2017-02-07 Thread Gert Doering
Dear Address Policy WG, On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:08:32PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: > The draft documents for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04, "RIPE > Resource Transfer Policies" have now been published, along with an impact > analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. > > The goal of

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

2016-11-18 Thread Riccardo Gori
[mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Namens Ciprian Nica Verzonden: zaterdag 22 oktober 2016 22:39 Aan: Radu-Adrian feurdeanripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net CC: RIPE Address Policy WG List<address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and

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

2016-10-26 Thread Havard Eidnes
Hi, just to prevent any remote possibility of misunderstanding, I support this policy. Regards, - HÃ¥vard

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

2016-10-26 Thread Remco van Mook
I support this version of the policy proposal - all of my concerns I've voiced previously have been addressed. Remco > On 27 sep. 2016, at 15:08, Marco Schmidt wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > The draft documents for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04, "RIPE >

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

2016-10-24 Thread Mike Burns
m: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sander Steffann Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 1:37 PM To: Ciprian Nica <off...@ip-broker.uk> Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Working Group <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04

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

2016-10-24 Thread Ciprian Nica
I'll be short as I'm assisting an interesting presentation ;) What I meant is that it's not "right" to be a contact person for them since I'm not the one making decisions. I'm an interface and I should be able to represent, help, interact but I feel by not allowing this, we're going too far with

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

2016-10-24 Thread Sander Steffann
Hi Ciprian, > Actually there were cases where we did like that, being put as a contact for > the LIR. I don't think this should be the solution as it doesn't seem > adequate at least. There were also cases where we would have to "speak" on > behalf of both parties so it would be awkward if not

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

2016-10-24 Thread Ciprian Nica
Hi, Actually there were cases where we did like that, being put as a contact for the LIR. I don't think this should be the solution as it doesn't seem adequate at least. There were also cases where we would have to "speak" on behalf of both parties so it would be awkward if not unprofessional to

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

2016-10-24 Thread Carsten Schiefner
Hi Sander, On 24.10.2016 16:17, Sander Steffann wrote: > Your customer can add you as an official contact in the LIR Portal if > necessary. That is the way LIRs can define who is permitted to speak > on their behalf. I have done that in the past: got added as a > contact, handled the case for

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

2016-10-24 Thread Sander Steffann
Hi Ciprian, > There is, though, an important thing which I think the policy needs to > address. The broker should be allowed to discuss with ripe on behalf of his > customers. It has happened several times that we had customers who don't > understand english very well and many times they would

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

2016-10-24 Thread Riccardo Gori
[mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Namens Ciprian Nica Verzonden: zaterdag 22 oktober 2016 22:39 Aan: Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net CC: RIPE Address Policy WG List <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Pub

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

2016-10-24 Thread Ciprian Nica
Hi, On Monday, October 24, 2016, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > Hi Ciprian - > > On 23.10.2016 16:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > On Sunday, October 23, 2016, Erik Bais > > >> wrote: > >

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

2016-10-24 Thread Carsten Schiefner
Hi Ciprian - On 23.10.2016 16:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: > On Sunday, October 23, 2016, Erik Bais > wrote: > When we made the parts that needed to be published in the transfer > statistics, that have crossed my mind, but I failed to

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

2016-10-23 Thread Erik Bais
an Nica Verzonden: zaterdag 22 oktober 2016 22:39 Aan: Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net CC: RIPE Address Policy WG List <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

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

2016-10-23 Thread Erik Bais
ddress-policy-wg@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) Hi, On Sunday, October 23, 2016, Erik Bais <eb...@a2b-internet.com <mailto:eb...@a2b-internet.com> > wrote: Hi Ciprian, > On Mon

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

2016-10-23 Thread Erik Bais
@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies) Regarding this policy I think it clearly states in the beginning: "The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant information rega

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

2016-10-22 Thread Ciprian Nica
That's a good point, what would happen when a business splits ? I think there are many situations that need to be discussed and if we want to do something good we'd need to cover all situations. And yes, there is definitely the need for better policies in order for NCC to do exactly what the

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

2016-10-21 Thread Ciprian Nica
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Sander Steffann wrote: > > > So it doesn't matter what the policy says it's scope is, it only matters > what the chair decides we can discuss or not. Nice "democracy" we have ... > > Even in parliament you need a chairperson to keep the

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

2016-10-21 Thread Ciprian Nica
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hello Ciprian, > > > It is also beyond the scope of this policy regulating what can be done > with resources and we're still discussing it. Let's stick to the policy's > scope and start a new one with proper debates

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

2016-10-21 Thread Sander Steffann
Hello Ciprian, > It is also beyond the scope of this policy regulating what can be done with > resources and we're still discussing it. Let's stick to the policy's scope > and start a new one with proper debates over this issue. Please leave it to the chairs to determine what is in scope for

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

2016-10-21 Thread Ciprian Nica
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Sasha, > > > In market-based economies, M -including the disposal of > > assets- are a matter for the parties involved and, occasionally, a state > regulator, which the NCC is NOT. > > It is unthinkable in such a

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

2016-10-21 Thread Ciprian Nica
Hi Sander, I hoped you would understand the idea and not hang on details. Yes, an integration process can take days, weeks, months or years. There are cases when placing a 24 months hold would make no difference but in most cases I think (based on the experience with previous acquisitions at my

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

2016-10-21 Thread Ciprian Nica
Agree with Sascha. As with the Allocated PI, in this situation RIPE community would like to impose some policies which are against the most common business practices. It is not efficient as it can at any time be attacked in any civilized justice system. Can anyone bring out some data on the "huge"

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

2016-10-21 Thread Ciprian Nica
On Friday, October 21, 2016, Havard Eidnes wrote: > > What you say could be expressed (again it's a metaphor) like this: > > If you're interested in swaying the opinion in your favour you > would do well by avoiding arguing by using metaphors or colurful > paraphrasing, and

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

2016-10-21 Thread Sascha Luck [ml]
On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 01:17:32PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote: As for 2015-04, I oppose it as it tries yet again to bring M under policy regulation (s. 2.2) which the community has no business doing. Please educate me why the community has no business doing this. I would have thought that was

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

2016-10-21 Thread Sascha Luck [ml]
You would do well to take some lessons in debate culture yourself. You're -not even too veiledly- accusing another member of abuse, something we have heard altogether too much of lately. As for 2015-04, I oppose it as it tries yet again to bring M under policy regulation (s. 2.2) which the

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

2016-10-21 Thread Havard Eidnes
> Since there were many discussions and yes, I've made the mistake to write > in a different topic about the 2015-04, I want to state clearly that I > oppose this policy. > > Again, if it would do what it's goal is, then it would be perfect. But it > doesn't. It brings up important changes which

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

2016-10-21 Thread Ciprian Nica
Hi, Since there were many discussions and yes, I've made the mistake to write in a different topic about the 2015-04, I want to state clearly that I oppose this policy. Again, if it would do what it's goal is, then it would be perfect. But it doesn't. It brings up important changes which are

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

2016-10-19 Thread Sander Steffann
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

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

2016-10-19 Thread Sander Steffann
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] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

2016-10-19 Thread Ciprian Nica
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] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

2016-10-19 Thread Ciprian Nica
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] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

2016-10-13 Thread Erik Bais
Hi, I would like to ask you to also read the 4th version of the RIPE Resource Transfer Policies and ... provide you feedback (even if that is only a +1 ) on the list ... This phase ends 26 October 2016 (right in the middle of the RIPE73 meeting in Madrid ) ... > You can find the full