[anti-abuse-wg] RIPE policy

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org> wrote:
>
> That being said, it is quite sad that those of you who repeatedly return and complain never put forward a formal proposal to change the allocation policy. I personally don't understand why you have not done this. Presumably changing the policy so that the space doesn't get distributed to the people you don't like in the first place would go quite some way to solving your problem.

You will hopefully get a proposal by the time of the next RIPE meeting.

I have not personally submitted a proposal earlier as I don't
participate in RIPE (and thanks to travel restrictions, haven't
participated in APRICOT since 2009 + resigned from the APIA board).
But I do hope to assist someone in contributing to his proposal.

That said, maybe it is high time to close what might be seen as a
process hole in RIPE -

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/anti-abuse/minutes/ripe-58

Filiz Yilmaz (RIPE NCC Policy Development Manager) made a
clarification on the effect of having different mechanisms among the
RIRs and whether they had LIR structures or not. She said the RIPE NCC
membership might understand some terms differently from people in
other RIR regions. She said the assignment window mechanism in the
RIPE NCC service region allowed LIRs some freedom to make assignments
without RIPE NCC approval. She said this means the RIPE NCC doesn’t
see those requests as approval requests. She said AfriNIC has an LIR
system but not that assignment window.

Richard thanked Filiz and made the point that AfriNIC assigned a /20
to an entity that does not exist and it has not revoked the block even
though they have been informed. He said APNIC had previously had
problems with Whois accuracy but he does not see any problems there
now. He said the only RIRs where he saw problems were the RIPE NCC and
LACNIC.

-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)