[address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)

Hi Sandra,

I see that the status of this proposal on the RIPE website is "Awaiting 
Decision from Proposer". The status has not changed since 02 July 2014 :)

Do you have any updates on this policy proposal?

@WG-chairs - is this proposal frozen now, waiting the result of 2014-02 
or will it move to the next PDP step anytime soon?

Kind regards,
Elvis

On 23/06/14 23:02, sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote:
> Tore, Thanks for your feedback.  See below for comments.
>
> From: Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-05 New Policy Proposal (Policy
>   for Inter-RIR Transfers of Internet Resources)
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Message-ID: <53A7ECB6.60108 at fud.no>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>
> I like it, overall. Clearly there are a few who are interested in
> engaging in inter-RIR transfers, and if we can facilitate for this
> without imposing any cost or burden on those who are not interested, I
> can see no reason to not do this.
>
> With regards to the proposals second argument against (regarding the
> re-introduction of "need" if another RIR insists), I do not consider
> that to be problematic at all, as it would be a burden that would be
> borne in its entirety by the entity voluntarily taking part in a
> transfer involving a "needy" RIR.
>
> I have some comments/suggested improvements though:
>
> 1) I concur with other posters that the use of ?LIR? should be avoided.
> However, I'd also like to add that suggested replacement ?organisation?
> could potentially also be problematic, as a resource holder could be a
> natural person rather than an organisation. It would be preferable to
> avoid getting in a situation where non-organsation resource holders
> would be prevented from engaging in inter-RIR transfers even though the
> resource-specific policy would allow for that.
>
> Therefore I would suggest using even more general language, such as
> ?resource holder?/?resource holder to be? or ?entity?.
>
>
> **** I think this is a very good point, thanks.  Sandra
>
> 2) The proposal seeks to add the following paragraphs to ripe-606
> section 5.5:
>
> ?When Internet number resources are transferred to another RIR, the RIPE
> NCC will work with the destination RIR to allow the transfer to the
> receiving LIR.
>
> When Internet number resources are transferred from another RIR, the
> RIPE NCC will work with its member LIR to fulfil any requirements of the
> sending RIR.?
>
> These additions seem completely redundant to me, as the new policy
> document says pretty much the same thing in sections 2.0 and 3.0.
>
> (Also, ?fulfill? is incorrectly spelled.)
>
> *** Thanks for pointing out this redundancy issue.
> *** Let me look into it with Marco and the Chairs, as to whether we
> *** would add the text or were making a statement of fact.
> *** Agree on spelling of fulfill.  Thanks. Sandra
>
> 3) Also in ripe-606 section 5.5 the proposal seeks to add the following:
>
> ?If resources are transferred as legacy resources, the RIPE NCC will
> apply the legacy policy when accepting these resources.?
>
> This statement seems out of place to me:
>
> * ripe-606 does not apply to legacy resources, a fact which is implied
> by the new paragraph as well. The statement therefore voids itself.
>
> * Even if disregarding the above, ripe-606 only covers IPv4. Legacy
> resources also include ASNs. So if the resource is to be transferred is
> a legacy ASN, this transfer would be regulated by a piece of policy text
> located in the non-legacy IPv4 policy....which would to me be a
> completely nonsensical outcome.
>
> IMHO, the only sensible place to locate a statement that essentially
> says "legacy resources are governed by the legacy policy" is in, you
> guessed it, the legacy policy itself (ripe-605). We're in luck, because
> it already does just that. :-)
>
> *** I am not sure we will add that statement to the policy or if it is
> *** just a statement of fact:  that legacy policy will apply, as you
> say.
> *** Let me check with Marco, as what you say makes total sense to
> *** me.  Sandra
>
> So in summary, all of the additions 2014-05 seeks to do in ripe-605 seem
> redundant or out of place to me, accomplishing no actual policy change
> beyond adding bloat. Am I missing something? If not, I'd much rather
> prefer that ripe-605 is left alone by 2014-05.
>
> *** Yes the intention is not to add bloat but perhaps to re-confirm what
>
> *** is already there.  Thanks a ton for your feedback, and of course for
> *** your support for the intent.
>
> *** Sandra
>
> Tore
>
>
>
> End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 34, Issue 15
> *************************************************
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140917/b86e2b8e/attachment.html>