This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2013100901000742] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2013100901000742] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2013100901000742] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore at fud.no
Wed Oct 9 13:02:02 CEST 2013
* Andrew Noable > I think the best opportunity is to allow PI to PA transfer for LIR > only... so If a resources holder is interesting to transfer their > resources from PI to PA they need to be a LIR. I believe only LIRs may hold PA space in any case. However we might consider whether it should be possible for (non-LIR) PI holders to transfer their blocks to LIRs under the provisions in section 5.5, converting them to PA in the process. (I wouldn't be opposed to that.) It would be good to get an update from the NCC on which conclusions they've drawn from the «Guidance requested» thread and how they will change their procedures (if at all). To me the community's guidance seemed clear enough, but perhaps we need to run this through the PDP anyway? Tore
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2013100901000742] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2013100901000742] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]