[address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01

Hello,

I don't have a very strong opinion about this, but i think i'm on the 
opposing side to this proposal.

I may be wrong, but i guess this community has some rules about returning 
resources to the RIR when they are not being used anymore. So, if there is 
a plan to "transfer" those resources to a (specific) 3rd party, it 
probably means they are not being used, so they should firstly be returned 
to our RIR... if current rules have any value.

The notion/definition that numbering resources are not an asset is present 
in several RIPE documents, correct? if this proposal is approved, imho 
some work needs to be done urgently to "ammend/remove" the documentation 
phrases where that definition is expressed/implied...

Regards,
Carlos Friaças


On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 06:57:16AM +0000, Tero Toikkanen wrote:
>> Also, we already have a policy for transferring address space within
>> the RIPE-region.
>
> "within", yes.
>
>> Why is this proposal trying to create a new policy instead of amending
>> what we already have in place?
>
> Because our current policy doesn't say anything about transfers outside
> of the RIPE region (plus, our current policy also needs work, but that's
> a different thread).
>
> Out-of-region transfers are (obviously) different because the rules of
> the corresponding RIR need to be taken into account.
>
> Gert Doering
>        -- APWG chair
> -- 
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>