[address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Remove "non-approved" transfer statistics?

Approaching this issue from the standpoint of transparency, statistical accuracy and statistical consistency, which are dear to us social scientists, I would argue to keep it in there. First, there may be a half year or more before 2013-3 goes into effect, if it eventually is passed. So we should during that period gain a statistical read on how many transfers are not approved. Now suppose that 2013-3 is passed and implemented. At worst, the number of non-approved transfers drops to 0. That is not a costly or troublesome thing. If it stays at 0 for a year or two, we can remove that reporting requirement later, and easily. OTOH, there is a chance that there are other reasons they are not approved, which Tore mentioned. In that case the current policy is generating potentially useful information. 

In short, I see no real gain in removing it now, and a possibility of lost information. We should just wait. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-
> bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Tore Anderson
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2013 1:02 AM
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: [address-policy-wg] 2013-03: Remove "non-approved" transfer
> statistics?
> 
> Quick question for the WG:
> 
> What do you feel 2013-03 should do about the current policy's
> requirement to publish aggregate statistics about "non-approved"
> transfers?
> 
> a) Keep it, or
> b) Remove it?
> 
> (This is independent of what you feel about 2013-03 overall, BTW.)
> 
> Background: Current IPv4 policy states that the NCC should publish
> aggregate statistics on "non-approved" transfers:
> 
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-582#Transfers-of-Allocations
> https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/ipv4-
> transfers/table-of-transfers (bottom of page)
> 
> I believe that 2013-03 will cause this part of the policy to lose its
> usefulness. The way I see it, a failed need evaluation is the principal
> reason why the NCC would refuse a transfer, and since 2013-03 takes away
> the need evaluation entirely, there's not going to be a lot of refused
> transfers.
> 
> Furthermore, 2012-05 states explicitly in its rationale that the
> intention of the statistics is to record <transfers [that] were denied
> on the basis of needs evaluation>:
> 
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05
> 
> However, this is not written down in the resulting policy (it refers
> only generally to "non-approved transfers"), and there are some other
> theoretical reasons why a transfer may fail apart from need evaluation,
> e.g., procedural violations such as attempts to transfer PI space or de-
> aggregate beyond the minimum allocation size.
> 
> So I think that the right thing for 2013-03 to do here, given its
> ambition to remove old and defunct policy text, is to also remove the
> policy provisions relating to non-approved transfer statistics. However,
> since it is possible to argue it's still relevant, I wanted to ask the
> WG's opinion first. (I'd prefer to leave it as-is, rather than end up
> having the entire proposal be ratholed over it.) If enough people
> answers "remove" and none "keep", I'll incorporate the removal into
> version 2 of 2013-03.
> 
> Best regards,
> --
> Tore Anderson