[address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)

Hi Gert,

Opposed.

I see this as potentially creating a good deal of admin overhead for
the RIRs, which will impact all LIRs, while the upside will only be
for those few who want to further commoditise Internet numbering
resources.

the relevant bits of the impact analysis are quoted below:


"C. Impact of Policy on RIPE NCC Operations/Services
Registration Services:
It is very relevant to note that the implementation of this policy
proposal will require a significant effort of co-ordination between
the RIPE NCC and the other RIRs. It is unclear at the moment how much
time and resources will be needed to fully implement the proposal.
.
.
D. Legal Impact of Policy
If this policy proposal will be accepted, the RIPE NCC will need to
create appropriate legal procedures and template agreements in order
for all parties to understand and agree on the preconditions and the
consequences of the transfer in accordance with the provisions of this
policy."


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel


On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> Dear AP WG members,
>
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 02:46:03PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote:
>> The draft document for the version 2.0 of the proposal 2012-02,
>> "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space", has been
>> published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal
>> has also been published.
> [..]
>> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
>>
>>     https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02
>>
>> and the draft document at:
>>
>>     https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02/draft
>>
>> We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments
>> to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 18 March 2013.
>
> Let me remind you again that we need your explicit voice of support if
> you want to see this proposal implemented.  (If you do *not* want that,
> an explicit voice of opposition would be helpful, too).
>
> "No response" is making our lives as WG chairs somewhat difficult - it will
> lead to "extention of the review period", and then after some more months
> to "asking the proposer to drop the proposal due to lack of support"...
>
> 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
>