16:03 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> I am Marco and will be monitoring to c channel for any questions
16:04 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> if you have a question, please clearly indicate it as such and provide name and affiliation, I will join the queue and read it out at the microphone
16:05 < prt-8676> Marco> This isn't an NCC services question, but how do I get remote access participation for the GM?
16:06 < prt-8676> (I am registered)
16:07 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> @prt let me check with colleagues, have no idea
16:09 < ripe_907> Greetings, Axel :)
16:10 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> prt: please mail agm [at] ripe [dot] net asap, they can add you and send instructions
16:14 < prt-8676> Marco: Done. Thanks.
16:22 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> Axel is getting to the end of his presentation, I am sure there will be some room for questions
16:22 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> again, happy to relay - please provide. name and affiliation
16:24 < ElvisVelea_> Marco, can you ask someone from the GM team to contact me privately?
16:24 < ElvisVelea_> got a question and a serious bug to report
16:25 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> @elvis: please mail agm [at] ripe [dot] net
16:25 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> can't leave this spot at the moment
16:25 < ElvisVelea_> mkay
16:40 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> Are there any questions for Felipe regarding his presentation on RIPE NCC operations?
16:41 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> mic line is about to open
16:42 < ElvisVelea_> Elvis Velea, V4Escrow: what are the steps that the RIPE NCC is taking to (i) avoid the creation of stale data in the RIPE Database and (ii) ensure its compliance with GDPR? Specifically, when a new LIR is created, a popup shows the following wording: “The RIPE NCC requires this information so it can: […]Create the relevant RIPE Database objects as part of the RIPE NCC's mandate to pursue the RIPE Community's legitimate interests”
16:42 < ElvisVelea_> 1. Why is the RIPE NCC creating RIPE Database objects by overriding existing maintainers? Why doesn’t it request the LIR to create the objects upfront and take responsibility for those objects. Right now the RIPE NCC uses an existing maintainer, overrides it’s authentication method and creates the object that is then published to the RIPE Database as maintained by the existing maintainer
16:43 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> ok, in the queue
16:43 < ElvisVelea_> 2. Why is the RIPE NCC forcing the creation and publication of person objects, when role objects should, I believe, be enough
16:46 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> sorry, that was a lot
16:46 < ElvisVelea_> yeah
16:46 < ElvisVelea_> should have written it differently
16:47 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> suggestion by Felipe and the WG chairs to take this on list
16:47 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> and please all here, keep questions concise and to the point
16:48 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> it is hard to relay when there is a lot compacted
16:48 < prt-8676> Marco> If you can convince the questions in the room to do that too :)
16:48 < ElvisVelea_> so, the question was: RIPE NCC creates person objects in the RIPE DB for each LIR. Why is it creating person objects and not role objects?
16:48 < ElvisVelea_> the method and the second part of the question, I'll take it offline or to the list
16:48 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> Is it okay if I take this offline with Felipe and ask him to get back?
16:49 < ElvisVelea_> I'd like an answer, if he has one... it has already been asked on the list and he said he will have more details at this meeting
16:49 < ripe_915> Marco, we always hear that question is long but never hear the answer. Could you be so kind to answer not about the form of the question but to it's sense?
16:49 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> ok, will try
16:50 < MarkV> The transfer of resources into a merger situation has become too bureaucratic. We had resources that were out of the 2 year hold period in September this year, but we are now forced to create a sub-LIR to these resources, and they are now on a new 2 year hold. Can we please change the procedure to allow the transfer when the resources will be out of 2 years hold and the yearly membership have been paid?
16:51 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> MarkV: should I relay?
16:51 < MarkV> Yes please
16:52 < ElvisVelea_> ok...
16:52 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> so question being, can qe change the procedure
16:52 < ElvisVelea_> Marco, please pass the questions to the ripe db chat monitor
16:52 < MarkV> Yes
16:53 < ElvisVelea_> even if I am not online for the ripe db session tomorrow, I hope Fellippe will reply to my questions
16:54 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> Elvis: can you please contact the DB WG Chairs or take it to the list
16:55 < ElvisVelea_> just like felippe, you are pushing the 'problem' to the next session
16:55 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> Elevis: can you please keep the discussion to relevant points, I am here to relay questions to the microphone, which I did to the best of my abilities
16:56 < ripe_84> +1 to that - feels like trolling at this point
16:56 < ElvisVelea_> ripe_84, I've been asking fellipe these questions for over 6 months
16:57 < ElvisVelea_> it becomes quite frustrating to see how real questions are dismissed and pushed under the carpet to a further session
16:57 < ripe_84> Using this room isn't an appropriate forum to air your grievances
16:57 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> I trust Felipe will get back and otherwise please take it to the RIPE Database Working Group as requested
16:58 < ripe_84> Dominating the mic time means that others don't have a chance to ask questions
16:58 < ElvisVelea_> I am still waiting for him to get back, it's been over six months since I first reported it
16:58 < ElvisVelea_> I am not trying to dominate the mic, was just trying to provide enough context and explanation so he understands what I am talking about
16:59 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> Felipe's email address in his slides - suggest you contact him directly and take this discussion elsewhere
16:59 < ElvisVelea_> ok, will do that
16:59 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> it is also highly confusing for me at the moment to keep track - apologies beforehand if I missed anything
17:00 < ElvisVelea_> get another coffee ;)
17:00 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> Athina has started presentation on closures, as the Chair suggested he wants to bundle the discussion around due dillegence and closures together after this presentation
17:01 < ElvisVelea_> the trolling just starts
17:07 < Aziraphale> erm?
17:07 < Aziraphale> who or what made the NCC "an authority"?
17:07 < Aziraphale> did I miss something?
17:10 < ripe_737> Aziraphale, you're totally right. Today NCC is authority, tomorrow their legal will replcae your ID with their own...
17:10 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> Athina is ready for questions, please be concise and state your full name and affiliation if you want me to relay
17:11 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> also please observe the Code of Conduct and phrase questions accordingly
17:11 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> is there anything to relay, it appears the chairs are slightly in a hurry
17:12 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> so I need to be quick in joining the queue
17:12 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> thx
17:12 < ripe_84> @aziraphale - the RIPE NCC is an RIR, endorsed by the RIPE community to carry out the function of maintaining the RIPE Registry
17:12 < Aziraphale> you could ask this: under which law is the RIPE NCC constituted "an authority" as stated on the slide?
17:13 < ElvisVelea_> ripe_84: do you work for RIPE NCC?
17:13 < Aziraphale> Sascha Luck, for various LIRs
17:13 < ripe_737> Marco, thank you, seems in any answer we will receive "I have no answer" or "I have no numbers", so don't bother, please.
17:13 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> Aziraphale: under what name/
17:13 < ripe_84> No, you don't need to work for the RIPE NCC to know this
17:14 < ElvisVelea_> I wanted to know if you work for the RIPE NCC as you do not identify with name/surname on this chat
17:14 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> on the queue for sascha
17:14 < Aziraphale> MarcoH_RIPENCC: for Cork Internet Exchange, then
17:15 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> no prior, missed your name
17:16 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> 3. ppl before me, pls hold
17:16 < ElvisVelea_> Elvis, V4Escrow: I believe the RIPE NCC should provide more statistics on number of fraud attempts, reports to LEAs, arbitrations, closures (and reasons for closures)
17:16 < ElvisVelea_> no question, just this comment
17:16 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> ok
17:17 < ripe_737> Marco, please also ask from the name of Ivan Lungov, Marosnet, Russia "If you review the possibility to move the arbitration procedure to respectful bodies such as for example international UDRP bodies, not some resprectful arbiters-physical persons" Thank you
17:17 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> will stay on queue
17:17 < Aziraphale> context: "competent authority" has a specific legal meaning as any lawyer should certainly know
17:19 < ElvisVelea_> I actually also have a question: Will the RIPE NCC close any LIR that provides the RIPE NCC documentation from an End-User that later on is proven to be falsified by the End-User?
17:20 < brian-1213> Aziraphale: The slide says authority, not designated competent authority, no?
17:21 < Aziraphale> brian-1213: it does make a difference, especially when it comes to demanding documents
17:21 < aaronw-174> "proven" is a very sticky word, whats your standard? beyond shadow of a doubt? the preponderance of evidence? more likely than not?
17:22 < Aziraphale> to me it has no more "authority" to demand anything than any other org I am a member of
17:22 < ripe_737> Brian, the thing is that they say they just the party of contract, so they and us are equal parties. "Authority" is already about subordination
17:23 < brian-1213> Well, the NCC's rules, set by the members and the community, say "You need these documents to get resources, if you don't have the documents, or you give us false ones, you don't get the resources."
17:23 < ElvisVelea_> the LIR is just a proxy between the RIPE NCC and the end user
17:23 < brian-1213> So that's not law, it's the rules of the business. Just like my board say we can't take on clients that aren't involved in publicly funded education and/or research.
17:23 < Aziraphale> I don't like, at all, the third-party risk this puts a LIR under
17:23 < ripe_737> Brian, when you follow the rules (procedures) you are not authority, you are just executor, operator.
17:24 < ElvisVelea_> if the end user falsifies documents and sends them to the LIR / RIPE NCC , will the RIPE NCC close the LIR which is the proxy?
17:24 < Aziraphale> I'm gonna recommend to the LIRs I do work for that they don't accept sponsorship anymore and get rid of existing ones
17:24 < Aziraphale> ElvisVelea_: that's how I read it
17:24 < brian-1213> ripe_737: My interpretation, and this is just my interpretation, is that the the NCC is given the authority to deal with LIRs or prospective LIRs in this way by the community and the members.
17:24 < Aziraphale> PI holder? Tough shit
17:25 < ElvisVelea_> I don't understand how they could missunderstand the question :D
17:25 < Aziraphale> have fun finding another sponsor
17:25 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> That was all I have on my list, any other questions for Athina apart from the 3 I just read out
17:26 < ripe_737> Brian, thank, in some point you are right, but the _delegated_ authority is called simple power. Even cleaning man/woman has some power but this not make her/him authority.
17:26 < ElvisVelea_> so, rephrasing: End User provides LIR a document that is falsified for the registration of a resource (let's say an ASN). The LIR does not know the document is falsified but RIPE NCC does an investigation and finds out the doc was falsified. Will the LIR be closed in this case just for being a proxy between an end-user and the RIPE NCC?
17:26 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> We're moving on to the next presentation
17:26 < ElvisVelea_> pfft, ok
17:26 < Aziraphale> ElvisVelea_: she said that it will if it happens "frequently" whatever that means
17:26 < ElvisVelea_> two questions, 0 answers
17:27 < ripe_737> Elvis, this is always like that. Simple question, but no answers
17:27 < brian-1213> ripe_737: I would argue that use of the word authority is a generally used one in this regard. I don't see it as an attempt to claim special power under the law. But ymmv
17:27 < aaronw-174> The problem is, is there a difference between an LIR with 1000 customers and 1 false ID and 1000 customers and 999 false IDs
17:27 < ripe_737> Maximum is "Each case is reviewd separately""
17:27 < aaronw-174> and yes, there is a difference
17:28 < ElvisVelea_> I've rarely used the chat for remote participation, it's an awful tool
17:28 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> Elvis; passed on your clarification offline, thanks
17:28 < aaronw-174> where the line of the difference is I am not qualified to comment on further
17:28 < ElvisVelea_> MarcoH, hoping I'll get an e-mail with an answer
17:28 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> I'll ask
17:28 < ripe_737> Elvis, I'll send you bottle of Champagne if you will receive exact answer
17:30 < ripe_737> No one question left for answers personaly on meetings was never reverted back by NCC employees with answer. We got ENOG, Ripe Day in Moscow - no answers
17:32 < ElvisVelea_> ripe_737: I understand the frustration, then
17:35 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> Fergal has just asked for you all to participate in the RIPE NCC Survey, where you can give feedback about us
17:35 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> any questions regarding his presentation?
17:50 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> any questions for Sergey
17:50 < ElvisVelea_> the stream stopped
17:51 < ElvisVelea_> it's back online
17:51 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> apologies for that, sure somebody is looking into it
17:53 < Aziraphale> comment on Nick's statement: Fraud *requires* intent in every legal definition I have ever read
17:53 < Aziraphale> if no intent there IS NO FRAUD
17:53 < ElvisVelea_> just happened again, stream stopped and restarted by itself after a few seconds, maybe 10 seconds or so
17:54 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> Elvis, notified tech staff
17:54 < ripe_258> all fine here, no problems
17:54 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> Azi: want me to queue for that?
17:55 < Aziraphale> actually, yes, please do
17:55 < ElvisVelea_> question/comment: maybe when an arbitration is requested by the member/end-user, they should accept the arbitration to be public, both its details and its outcome
17:55 < Aziraphale> it's not the first time in this context that "fraud" gets commingled with negligence or accident
17:56 < MarcoH_RIPENCC> on the queue for sasha and elvis