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

* Milton L Mueller

>> -----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.

Thanks - that would resolve my objection to the proposal.

>> 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 would. I feel that neither the source nor the recipient of a failed
transfer should be named. This extends to the address block itself (from
which it would have been trivial to figure out the source.)

In summary, my position is that:

* Source/dest/prefix for successful transfers should definitively be
made public.
* Aggregate statistical data both for failed and successful transfers is
«nice to have».
* Information that identifies the specific parties or resources
associated with a failed transaction should *not* be made public.

>> 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

Agreed. I would not object to such a proposal. That said, I won't
guarantee that I will come out and explicitly support it either (at
least not until I've seen you simply ask the NCC to publish the desired
data and been refused), but I promise I won't stand in your way.

(I think services-wg would be the right place to ask the NCC for the
data, by the way.)

Best regards,
-- 
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/