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 ]
Terrence Koeman
terrence at darkness-reigns.com
Tue Mar 3 15:02:49 CET 2020
Well, *you* say that you meet the requirement that a valid person is signing the documents, but RIPE is not convinced. And it's RIPE that needs to be convinced before it becomes a fact to them in regards of their policy. That there is some unconnected fact of the matter is irrelevant.
If your logic worked I could just send in no documents at all and say "why is it my problem that RIPE doesn't know the content of the documents?"
--
Regards,
Terrence Koeman, PhD/MTh/BPsy
Darkness Reigns (Holding) B.V.
Please quote relevant replies.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> On Behalf Of
> Dmitry P
> Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 12:46 PM
> To: members-discuss at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] About transfer policies
>
> 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> <mailto:head at global-
> data-networks.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 3 March 2020 03:13
> To: members-discuss at ripe.net <mailto: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 <mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net>
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-
> discuss/terrence%40darkness-reigns.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5051 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20200303/2a7ba49d/attachment.p7s>
- 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 ]