This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[members-discuss] Feedback Requested: RIPE NCC Broker List
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Feedback Requested: RIPE NCC Broker List
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Feedback Requested: RIPE NCC Broker List
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andy Smith
andy-ripe.net at bitfolk.com
Thu Dec 19 11:01:02 CET 2019
Hi Christian, On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 10:17:54AM +0100, Christian Kaufmann wrote: > Removing the list is straightforward and would spare the RIPE NCC a few > headaches. However, it is worth considering whether the current model > provides some incentive for brokers to play by the rules and what might > happen if this incentive is gone. How about keep the list but amend the Recognised IPv4 Transfer Broker Agreement to explicitly mention acceptable use of the RIPE database¹, and also that breach of these terms shall result in immediate removal from the list for a period of (for example) 3 months and a fee for re-admittance to the list to cover the time spent by RIPE staff in investigating any complaints? Then force the entire current list onto the new terms after 30 days. There is clearly value to brokers in being on this list. There is clearly value to the RIPE community in knowing that a broker is not in persistent breach of community norms. Having such a list without enforcing rules makes the list worthless, and that is the state we are currently in, since right now the document states that brokers must obey policies yet several brokers do not do so and remain on the list until there is a major outcry against them. Actually investigating complaints and enforcing the policy will take resources which is why I suggest that brokers who break the rules pay for that activity. If robust enforcement of the Recognised IPv4 Broker Agreement is not going to take place then I think there should not be such a thing, i.e. abolish the list. I would not suggest changing the current situation where being initially added to the list is free, since this might give the impression that RIPE is evaluating these applications in some way. Cheers, Andy ¹ The document already does state that brokers shall adhere to RIPE policies and procedures, but perhaps worth being explicit in this case since it does seem to be the most common complaint. -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] Feedback Requested: RIPE NCC Broker List
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] Feedback Requested: RIPE NCC Broker List
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]