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

On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 12:37:22AM +0200, Erik Bais wrote:
>To clarify here ... although all types of number resources can
>be transferred.. ( AS, IPv4, IPv6 ) there are some specific
>resources ( like v4 for IXP usage ) are not allowed to be
>transferred and MUST be returned..
>https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-649#61
>
>So in itself it is a more specific statement in the intent of
>the policy, this new policy isn't going to change the transfer
>options if the current policy states that it must be returned..

OK, didn't actually know this restriction existed.

>I also addressed this in the email of James.  And it was also
>discussed during the AS transfer policy in the room at the
>AP-WG.  The transfer policy time restriction is for scarce
>resources .. ( like IPv4 and 16-bits ASN's.) and not for IPv6 or
>32-bit ASn's.

A holding period for ASN16 is a material change in assignment
policy and should be in a separate proposal, not hidden in a (in
itself valuable) transfer policy aggregation proposal.

>Btw.. did you see that nr. 4.0 will also implement if a new
>field in the transfer statistics ...
>
>- Whether it was a transfer or merger/acquisition
>
>As it will also make a slight change in the transfer
>restrictions .. as it closes the 'loophole' to have transfers
>now also restricted after M&A's and not only after allocation by
>RIPE NCC or transfers.

What is this supposed to mean? The 24-month timer resets if a
resource is acquired by M&A? 
Pretty substantial change IMO. Again, this should be subject to a
separate proposal. And perhaps a membership  vote as it
materially affects the M&A procedure.

People, the RIPE community should not make policy like the US
House of Representatives - by this I mean hiding your wish list
in marginally related legislation in the hope that it will go
unnoticed. 
This proposal is a much needed aggregation of scattered policy
items and a laudable effort by the author. 
It is ill served by trying to make changes to policy at the same
time.

As a result, I will oppose 2015-04 until I am satisfied that
there is no material change in policy contained within, and am
looking forward to discuss such changes on their own merits.

rgds,
Sascha Luck