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

On 17/11/2015 22:55, Gert Doering wrote:
> 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 :-)
>
And of course the NCC can't fix the problem. That is up to the community.

Nigel