[address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)

> -----Original Message-----
> Let's say I want to transfer an allocation to another LIR, and want the
> fact that I've been dealing with said LIR to remain a secret until the
> deal is done. If the deal falls through due to the failure of the
> recipient LIR to justify their need for the transferred resource, I
> don't want the fact I was in negotiations to transfer away 192.0.2.0/24
> to become public knowledge.

OK, this is a valid concern, imho. I would propose to modify the language such that statistical aggregates are published rather than individual blocks. 
 
> Also, if the goal of the identification is to combat discrimination in
> need assessment, isn't it the *receiving* LIR that should be identified?

Correct. Would you object if they were? Would others? 

> I have no objection to having the NCC publish aggregate information
> about how many transfer tickets they've handled and how many of them
> was approved. That said, I'm not so sure we would need to have a policy for
> it, it might be simpler to just ask them to publish the information in
> aggregate form. For example, they do something along those lines at
> http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/tools-for-
> lirs/reponse-time-ipv4
> without there being any policy compelling them to.

Whatever is easier. 

> So yes indeed, <RIPE[sic] could easily make this accessible to all with
> a few keystrokes>. They have stated a willingness to do so, too. So why
> do we need to change policy, exactly? The PDP is a slow process. It
> seems to me that it is faster to just ask the NCC to start publishing
> the desired information. If they refuse to do so, then let's look into
> compelling them through policy.

Valid points! But on the other hand if we ask them to do it and they don't, then the process becomes even slower, doesn't it? 
I would prefer to go ahead with the policy change, but as you suggest remove the stuff about failed needs assessments, turn that into a request from RIPE for aggregate statistics. 

Are we in agreement on that? If so, I will propose a specific modification of the proposal