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/members-discuss@ripe.net/

[members-discuss] About transfer policies

Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] About transfer policies
Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] About transfer policies

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Dmitry P head at global-data-networks.com
Tue Mar 3 12:45:42 CET 2020

What's contradictory is there is no policy stating that lacking
knowledge on their part about some country's jurisdiction may affect
transfers. The requirements for a transfer are an active company and a
valid person who is signing the documents, which criteria is being meet
completely by our company.

In this case they want to make us wait about 2 weeks for a reason that
doubtfully affects the transfer at all, since the general criteria is
being meet on our side. If they made some mistake of not knowing the
jurisdiction in full, why they wouldn't leave that for themselves
instead of involving us in the waiting time?

For me nothing is logical here, especially, when a company that provided
a service to you during 4 years suddenly change their mind about way
they do business without prior notification, specially when nothing have
changed on your part. At least it's not how business is supposed to work
in my opinion.

This line doesn't affect the way our company exists, at least it's not
the reason to suspend a business with us. It probably means that the
director is not backed by an organisation and it's a private person. We
have seen a lot of extracts of currently active companies we work with
that have a same line, so it's quite common, though I am not sure what
it means exactly.

On 3/3/20 2:24 AM, Terrence Koeman wrote:
>
> It seems to me they did not notice it earlier, but now they have and
> are seeking clarification from the issuing authority.
>
>
> Seems completely logical to me. Just because they did not notice it
> before doesn't mean that they are now forced to continue exactly as
> before...
>
>
> "doesn't have" on an extract may concern authority to represent a
> business or something important like that. I don't see what policy is
> contradicted here? Can you suggest one?
>
>
> -- 
> Regards,
>    Terrence Koeman, PhD/MTh/BPsy
>      Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V.
>
> Please quote relevant replies.
> Spelling errors courtesy of my 'smart'phone.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Dmitry P <head at global-data-networks.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 3 March 2020 03:13
> *To:* members-discuss at ripe.net
> *Subject:* [members-discuss] About transfer policies
>
>     Hello,
>
>     we are in some weird situation with transfering out an IP range
>     and RIPE
>     doesn't provide any answers to our questions, the transfer is
>     suspended
>     for a very weird reason and we are out of options; I would like to
>     hear
>     other members opinions on that subject with a hope of seeking some
>     answers that RIPE didn't provide after numerous attempts.
>
>     Our company's extracts are created by Ukraine's Ministry of
>     Justice and
>     have a specific line near the director field which says '(не має)'
>     right
>     after mentioning the director's name, which means "(doesn't have)"
>     from
>     Ukrainian.
>     ПОЧТАРЬОВ ДМИТРО ОЛЕГОВИЧ - керівник з 25.05.2016 (не має);
>
>     We had this line on all our extracts since the company was opened and
>     RIPE has a) accepted us as a member by reviewing those extracts b)
>     approved numerous in and out transfers with those extracts  since
>     2016
>     c) recently approved a transfer out about 2 weeks ago using the
>     extract
>     with the same line.
>
>     4 days ago we have requested another transfer and a RIPE rep. has
>     asked
>     us to clarify about what '(не має)' means in our extract. We have no
>     clue what it means exactly and never interested because it was
>     present
>     since a first extract, also because RIPE has never questioned it
>     before,
>     and as I have mentioned, all the previous extracts came with that
>     line.
>
>     We don't have a clue of what it means and the RIPE's rep. decided to
>     suspend the transfer and make a request to Ukraine's Ministry of
>     Justice, which was very unexpected decision from our point of view.
>     She told us that "Though we process tens of requests of Ukrainian
>     companies every day, it's first time that we see such a record.
>     It's not
>     entirely clear what it means and what you as a Director "do not
>     have".",
>     to which I responded it's a false statement, because RIPE
>     certainly HAS
>     SEEN this line before, at least because my company have performed
>     many
>     transfers and requests with RIPE, which have been approved using same
>     extracts. In this case, she talked about her own experience in the
>     name
>     of RIPE, which already was not very professional.
>
>     So I obviously asked why does some her or RIPE's unawareness in
>     Ukraine's legislation should concern us, to what I got no answer
>     at all.
>     Are we really responsible for RIPE's lack of knowledge on some
>     subject?
>     Our company is active and the extracts are all valid on the min.
>     justice
>     site, also the signee of the T.A. corresponds to the director name -
>     this all makes us compliant to the RIPE's rules and policies,
>     which, we
>     believe should have made this transfer complete already.
>
>     Notwithstanding our expectations, RIPE didn't provide any answer
>     to our
>     questions and also didn't tell why this specific matter should
>     concern
>     this specific transfer, since there were already approved transfers
>     using same extract. Now we must wait about 2 or 3 weeks until the
>     Min.
>     of Justice responds them to clarify this, which made us very
>     disappointed, since we still do not understand why this case
>     affects our
>     transfer at all.
>
>     This is very frustrating and we have no more choices but hearing
>     other
>     members opinions and suggestions, if any. Doesn't it look like
>     RIPE is
>     very contradictory to its own policies in this case?
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     members-discuss mailing list
>     members-discuss at ripe.net
>     https://mailman.ripe.net/
>     Unsubscribe:
>     https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/terrence%40darkness-reigns.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20200303/31b7e06d/attachment.html>

Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] About transfer policies
Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] About transfer policies

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ members-discuss Archives ]