[ncc-services-wg] UA IP transfers situation

Who's asking for that? As a business, such an offer only harms me! What LIR
do you represent and how many IP have been stolen from you?

On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 9:43 AM Viktoriia Opanasiuk <
viktoriia.opanasiuk at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All !
>
>
> > Hi All!
> >
> > Let me point out what is happening with Ukrainian resources
> > transfers.
> >
> > We are now facing with the hugest government based attack
> > against our basic principles of government free self
> > regulation.
> >
> > I think the real target of the attacker is to obtain
> > a financial gain from IPv4 market.
> >
> > First, the deputy of Ukrainian Parliament Olexandr Fedienko
> > wrote a letter to RIPE NCC with the initiative of hand-checking
> > transfer requests with Ukrainian government agency. This idea
> > was not accepted neither by Ukrainian, nor by European
> > community. People understand this is a step out from RIPE
> > community self-governance and the source of corrupted money for
> > this agency as it should decide either pass the transfer or
> > not.
> >
> > After that initiative was rejected, Fedienko with the help of
> > his representatives at the RIPE 85 meeting in Belgade tried to
> > ban all the transfers outside Ukraine. His representatives
> > promoted a set of very expressive and emotional speeches about
> > possible forced transfers. He also used his power and pushed
> > a set of Ukrainian companies to register online to RIPE 85 (and
> > for some reason - for GM, I think he just don't understand the
> > difference) and to send a copy-pasted message about support of
> > the ban.
> >
> > The idea is to close the market, limiting the transfers only to
> > Ukrainian companies.
>
>
> The proposal is to temporarily deny ALL transfers, inside and outside of
> Ukraine, so that all resource holders will remain with what they have, and
> nobody could possibly get hold of their resources.
>
>
> > And to buy resources almost for free, as the war pushes people
> > to sell it, while the buy offers are very limited. It looks
> > logical. But their arguments for the ban are not.
>
>
> This is very hypothetical scenario, based on wrong assumption, described
> one paragraph above.
>
> And even if that assumption would not be wrong, it is quite unrealistic
> that Ukrainian companies that maintain infrastructure and struggle to
> rebuild networks on destroyed or de-occupied territories are going to sell
> their IP addresses to get some profit - they do not have enough of them
> already, how are they going to get more?
>
> On the other hand, there is quite real scenario for companies whose
> business is based on re-selling IP addresses or providing "services" of
> moving resources out of Ukraine, including the one that Max Tulyev
> announced just several days ago (
> https://www.facebook.com/mt6561/posts/pfbid0273c1ndwbZXBLc9ST7sFwisCC9o8Bw9Yhs8vAUfX1e9HP5UmQexvUCbnGp8RtQVvFl
> ).
>
> Such businesses will not thrive if the transfers will be frozen.
>
> Of course, these companies are also part of the RIPE community. But the
> community could choose what values it supports.
>
>
> > They said they need the whole-Ukrainian ban to protect
> > resources at the distressed areas against the forced transfer.
> >
> > First, while RIPE NCC accepts "documents" issued on the
> > occupied territories based on LPR/DPR/Russian jurisdiction,
> > this ban of Ukrainian resources transfer can be easily avoided
> > just using these "documents". Including for the real forced
> > transfers.
>
>
> It isn't clear what is the problem you describe here.
> However, it is a problem that many companies from those territories are
> registered by RIPE NCC based on registration papers issued either by russia
> or dnr/lnr, and therefore might not be seen as Ukrainian.
> Ideally RIPE NCC should block transfers of companies registered on the
> whole internationally recognized territory of Ukraine, including all
> occupied territories.
>
>
> > Second, it is nothing to do with Ukrainian companies based on
> > the territories not in the distress area. From the war front
> > line to for example Uzhgorod city there are ~800km and 2000m
> > high mountains. Why should we complicate the life for these
> > companies?
>
>
> For someone who fled the country it might seem that there are distressed
> areas and areas "behind high mountains". But the reality in Ukraine is that
> the whole country is distressed. There are companies registered in what you
> describe as "safe areas", but they have representatives on all territory of
> the country, including occupied areas. Or the head of a company in the
> "safe" territory could have relatives who are under occupation. In all such
> cases they could be threatened and forced to sign transfer documents.
>
>
> > Third, it is unclear why transfers inside Ukraine should not be
> > banned for the time the policy is being updated. If we really
> > have the problem, it is logical to ban all transfers.
>
>
> Again, the proposal is to temporarily hold all transfers of Ukrainian
> holders.
>
>
> > Forth, I asked many times to show any example of the forced
> > transfer in the distress area. They can't. I did not hear any
> > of these situations myself. So for me the problem they are
> > trying to solve did not even exist.
> >
> > This situation with the possible country-wide transfer ban rose
> > a big discussion in Telecom Ukraine telegram channel, which is
> > a discussion point for a lot of (but not all) Ukrainian
> > Internet and telecom companies.
> >
> > Instead of explaining things for my requests, Olexandr Fedienko
> > call me there a hidden Russian FSB agent, and Olena Kushnir
> > said I do not understand that "we should keep a valuable
> > resource inside our country during the war". But sorry, these
> > are definitely not their resources! So they should not tell
> > holders what to do with it, until we are not live in
> > a Communist country where all things belongs to the government.
> >
> > This situation makes deeply concern Ukrainian community and
> > resources holders. We are really afraid some of this proposals
> > will be implemented without consensus inside Ukrainian
> > community, just because of government letters, emotional
> > speeches. And definitely without any "closed meetings" (C)
> > Olena Kushnir with NCC staff inaccessible for people with
> > another opinion.
> >
> > It will be so kind if RIPE NCC officials release a statement
> > where they clearly state they will not implement any bans for
> > resource holders not in the distress area. And any changes on
> > the policy will be implemented with the current policy
> > development process, consensus, and in the co-operation with
> > all community. This will calm down the situation and will
> > convince people that NCC really respects and protects the
> > interests of the community members.
> >
> > Thank you very much for the long reading!
> >
>
> And in the end it will be better if we focus our efforts on solving the
> problem, and not on writing a hypothetical stories. The discussion should
> be constructive and effective.
> Thanks.
>
> Viktoriia Opanasiuk
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change
> your subscription options, please visit:
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20221031/2d200d50/attachment.html>