[address-policy-wg] 2014-12 Last Call for Comments (Allow IPv6 Transfers)

Hi Nick, 

> the issue that concerns me is that creating a requirement for a contract
> means that there is a requirement for legal people to be involved in the
> transfer process.  Whatever about legal wording in civil law countries
(NL,
> most of europe), common law countries (ie/uk/us, etc) generally tend to
> benefit from more specific wording.  If there is any hint of ambiguity, it
> creates the possibility of argument and that is painful when it happens.

There are always agreements/contracts in place, also with the current
transfer processes.
In this particular case you will have to think about an End-User Agreement
(for PI IPv6) to be in place with an Sponsoring LIR. 
Also each transfer needs to be accomplished with a so called Transfer
Agreement (template from RIPE).  

> The term "minimum assignment size" is used sloppily all over the place in
> the ripe policy document store to mean different things in different
> places.  In this case, the wording isn't particularly ambiguous to you or
> me, but it would not necessarily be clear at first sight to the man on the
> Clapham omnibus. If five uncontentious words were added, this would make
> its interpretation completely clear. 

And with that man on the Clapham omnibus you refer to a hypothetical
reasonable person ... ( I had to look it up ... ) The irony .. 

> Weighing things up, common sense suggests that it would be more sensible
to
> clarify than not.

> Previous policy proposals have had clarification text added between
phases,
> so it's possible that adding the text wouldn't necessarily delay the
> proposal - obviously this is a decision for the ap-wg chairs.

As we are going into a full re-styling of the Transfer Policies into a
single document, we will have to see if it is going to be required to do
that in this particular version or in the next re-style.  
There is little value imho to add clarification text here as we are going to
cut the text in a couple weeks into a new document. If that new version
needs a beter explanation it would make more sense in doing it there. 

> As a more general observation, it might be useful for a future unified
> policy to differentiate between depleted resources (e.g. ipv4 / asn16) and
> non depleted resources (e.g. ipv6 /asn32) and make it clear that the
> cooling off period is intended depleted resources.

I like the suggestion to look into the structure and difference between
depleted and non depleted resources. 
I'll take that in mind for the Transfer doc.  

Thanks Nick,

Regards,
Erik