[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 06:06:09PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
>The proposal would apply to allocations that were made in the past. 
>When the RIPE NCC received a transfer request, we would check to see 
>that at least 24 months had elapsed since the allocation was made. For 
>example, a /22 allocation that was made 23 months before the proposal 
>was accepted would have a waiting period of one month before it could 
>be transferred.

I do not think the NCC should go down the road of applying policy
changes ex post facto. A LIR can reasonably expect that
conditions attached at the time of allocation/assignment of a 
resource would continue to obtain throughout the lifetime of 
that assignment. 
Why, a policy could be enacted that retroactively invalidates
allocation/assignment criteria, resulting in LIRs having to
return most or all of their allocations. Or, how a bout a
retroactive charging scheme?

In light of this, I will oppose this proposal. For what that will
turn out to be worth.

rgds,
Sascha Luck