[address-policy-wg] RIPE staff vs Court

Marco,

I'm not comlaining for a certain hostmaster. I'm trying to adjust a
policy when one man with their feeling or opinion can't drop down
somebody's business.

The difference is very big: will you go through arbitration BEFORE or
AFTER the blackdown of your network.

Marco Hogewoning wrote:
> 
> On Oct 21, 2009, at 8:01 PM, Mark Scholten wrote:
> 
>> Hello Max,
>>
>> As long as it is Dutch Court I don't see a problem.
>>
>> If you are against a decision RIPE did make you can go to Dutch Court and
>> ask if they decide to change it.
> 
> 
> No you can't...under the standard service agreement which you signed
> when you became a LIR you signed for the conflict arbitration procedure
> which is described in RIPE-174.
> 
> To comment on the orginal complaint, seems to me you got bitten by
> RIPE-471, section 6.6:
> 
> ====
> 6.6 Validity of an Assignment
> All assignments are valid as long as the original criteria on which the
> assignment was based are still valid and the assignment is properly
> registered in the RIPE Database. If an assignment is made for a specific
> purpose and that purpose no longer exists, the assignment is no longer
> valid. If an assignment is based on information that turns out to be
> invalid, the assignment is no longer valid.
> 
> For these reasons it is important that LIRs make sure that assignments
> approved by the RIPE NCC are properly registered in the database. The
> inetnum object or objects for approved assignments must use the
> netname(s) approved by the RIPE NCC and not be larger than the approved
> size. Additionally, the date in the first “changed:” attribute must not
> be earlier than the date of the approval message from the RIPE NCC.
> 
> The RIPE NCC reviews assignments made by LIRs when evaluating requests
> for additional allocations (see 5.3). It also runs consistency checks as
> part of the auditing activity requested by the community as described in
> the RIPE document “RIPE NCC Audit Activity” found at:
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/audit.html
> 
> ====
> 
> So as I understand the big question here is if the original criteria on
> which those assignments are made still are valid by changing
> registration data and administratively move them to another entity or
> country.
> 
> I guess the only people who can answer that question are the NCC
> hostmasters, please keep in mind this is a RIPE community mailinglist
> and not the NCC who you are complaining to. Nobody on this mailinglist
> has access to supporting documents or when they do are bound by NDA so
> nobody on this list is capable of making sany sane judgement wether this
> complaint is justified or what the background is for sending the letter
> about reclaiming space in the first place.
> 
> So please as a simple request, please take this to where it belongs and
> contact hostmaster at ripe about this or start a arbitration as described
> in 174:
> 
> "Initiation of the Procedure
> 
> In case of conflicts both parties should document their grievances and
> communicate them to the other party. They should then try to resolve the
> conflict between themselves. Only if such resolution has been tried and
> documented by at least one of the parties can the formal procedure
> start. The party initiating the procedure will select an arbiter from
> the pool and provide the arbiter with a written summary of their
> position in the conflict as well as documentation of their efforts to
> resolve it. The arbiter shall verify that sufficient attempts at direct
> resolution have been made. He shall then notify the other party that the
> resolution procedure has been initiated. The other party will then have
> two calendar weeks to either accept arbitration by this arbiter or to
> select one of their own from the pool. If they do not react within this
> time, the first arbiter can decide to proceed with the single arbiter
> procedure or to select another arbiter from the pool for the other party
> and proceed with the three arbiter procedure."
> 
> Thank you
> 
> MarcoH
> 


-- 
WBR,
Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO)