[address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Draft Documents and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 08:44:17PM +0100, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> > This is a serious issue that will affect all of us. The chairs take this
> > issue into the consensus-reaching process and we ask the authors and
> > working group to address this.
>
> I didn't anticipate this issue, either, and I agree that the RIPE NCC's
> concerns are valid and real.
> 
> Shouldn't this be a rather straightforward thing to fix in the proposal?
> 
> Or am I missing something here?

Since the intentions basically are to do "the right thing" (so, PA blocks
can only be transferred to LIRs or "member of other RIRs", not to "anyone
having a contract", etc.) and just the wording got simplified too much,
I do not see unforeseeable problems here.

If there is consensus otherwise to go forward, this will need a textual
change that very clearly states in no unclear terms what can be done
(and by omission, what can not be done), and another impact analysis - so,
one extra round through the PDP.  But it is not the first time that the
IA uncovered wording that needs to be clarified "if read by an outsider", 
so it's good that we have it :-)

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
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 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20151117/016cde34/attachment.sig>