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

Dear AP WG,

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
[..]
> We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments
> to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 18 March 2013.

Some comments have been received, but the voice of the community is less
than clear to me.

I have 3 voices of opposition, 4 voices of support, and a number of
voices that are asking for clarification.  This is far from consensus,
and it's a bit unlucky that the real discussion is starting so late in
the process - but anyway, now you're talking and I'm happy to see this.

To try to reach a more clear picture, the WG chairs have decided to 
extend the review period for this proposal by 4 weeks as well.  Emilio
will do the formal announcement soon.

I want to ask the proposer (Sandra Brown) to use that time to sort out 
the remaining issues regarding language - if needed, we can always do 
a v3.0 of the proposal, possibly changing it completely - and work 
with those that oppose the proposal to see whether middle ground can 
be found.  In addition to that, some behind-the-scenes talk suggested to
me that there was "lots of interest" in this proposal - so show it to me, 
by speaking up.


Appended below is a list of people voicing an opinion in the review 
phase, and my interpretation of their support/non-support for the 
proposal.  If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been 
said, and the conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know.

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair

-------------------------------------------
2012-02 2.0 review phase (2013-03-04 - 2013-03-18)

Sandra Brown: explanation of the reason for a v2.0

McTim: opposition based on impact analysis and NCC workload
  Tore Anderson: worried about amount of work created, neutral
  Sascha Luck: opposition based on admin overhead creating fee increase

Mike Burns: support

Nigel Titley: worried about language not precise enough
  answered by Sandra Brown

Andreas Larsen: support, but worried about cost/overhead at RIPE NCC

Boggits: question about existing transfer policy clauses ("must be empty")
  (short side-track to clarify)

Richard Hartmann: neutral, but "proposal is not ready, needs more discussion,
  it's not actually clear waht this is all about"
  (short side-track, WG chair pointing to relevant bits of proposal)
   -> still "neutral" to "weak support"

Mike Simkins: "more clarification needed", tend to opposition

Andre de la Haye / RIPE NCC: clarification about implementation costs
  -> Tore Anderson "return to neutral wrt proposal"

Phil Rushton: support
-- 
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