[address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01

> 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.

I was merely questioning the rationale of having a completely separate transfer policy for each case, in stead of just one covering all cases. In that case we could have general conditions covering all cases and more detailed provisions for individual transfer types. Right now the conditions presented in the proposal seem to be lacking in many perspectives, as has already been noted on this discussion.

I also know that the current intra-RIR transfer policy is embedded in the more general allocation and assignment policy, so in that sense it seems like a good idea to make a separate policy and not tamper with existing material. Should the community feel that a policy for inter-RIR transfers is needed, I urge to keep policy coherency in mind when considering conditions. Right now I feel that the suggested conditions for inter-RIR transfers differ too much from conditions already in place for intra-RIR transfers. For example, in case of intra-RIR transfers, the need for address space is evaluated by RIPE, which (according to the proposal) would not be the case with inter-RIR transfers (the wording of condition 2. is quite vague).

____________________________________
Tero Toikkanen
Nebula Oy