[address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Policy Proposal (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

wow Nick, thanks for the diff.

I have not had time to carefully ready all the documents, so, this reply 
is only to your comments. I'll send an other e-mail If I find anything 
else worth mentioning once I get the time to compare all the current 
policy documents to the new policy proposal.

On 01/09/15 00:22, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> You can find the full proposal at:
>>
>>      https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04
> first of all, a large thank-you for handling this policy aggregation.  This
> will make things a lot easier for organisations to understand how RIPE
> transfer policy works.  Although policy reworking like this is completely
> thankless, it's important to do.
big thanks, Erik
> I've gone down through the new policy and compared it against the old.  As
> expected, there is plenty of optimisation going on, but optimisation means
> changes and changes mean that we need to understand what's been changed.
>
> Enumerating some of the changes:
>
> "Resources are excluded from transfers when RIPE Policies mandate their
> return to the RIPE NCC.":  this is completely new text.  approve.
I would like this to be clarified. I don't recall having any policies 
mandating a return of a resource to the RIPE NCC.
>
> ipv6 transfer policy: added "Transfers must be reflected in the RIPE
> Database. Transfers can be on a permanent or non-permanent basis.".  approve.
+1
>
> ipv6 transfer policy: removed "The block that is to be re-allocated must
> not be smaller than the minimum allocation size at the time of
> re-allocation".  for the record, this is an interesting consequence of
> section 2.1, paragraph 3.  I.e. no point in repeating policy that already
> exists.
ok
>
> asn transfer policy: added "scarce resources ... cannot be transferred by
> the resource holder within 24 months".  I don't disagree with this, nor
> with the genericisation of this transfer restriction.
I do not disagree with this change. I would, as Sacha said, prefer to 
discuss it in a separate policy proposal.
> all policies: the tightening of the policy text in section 2.1 concerning
> who's currently responsible for the resource ("the original resource holder
> ... policies are applied") is good.
>
> asn + ipv6 policies: added statement that ripe policies apply for the
> duration of transfer and during the transfer process itself - to align with
> the ipv4 policy.  This is good, but other RIRs may claim that their
> policies apply during the transfer process.  Would it be worth discussing
> at a higher level whether there should be a global policy for which RIR
> policy applies during the transfer process?
I also believe that as long as a resource is registered in a registry's 
db, that registry's policy must apply.
>
> all policies: "Resources are excluded from transfers when RIPE Policies
> mandate their return to the RIPE NCC".  Mmm.  I'd be careful about
> inserting something like this.  Can you explain the intention and the
> meaning of this clause?
same as above.. I'd like this to be explained.
>
> all policies: removed statement about publishing stats on non-approved
> transfers.  Whoa, what's going on here?  Not ok.
IMHO, aggregated stats should still exist for non-approved transfers.
> Nick
>
>
regards,
elvis