[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://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > 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://lists.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 ]