[address-policy-wg] Fwd: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update

hello,

PLS, take in consideration the situation

Company  X  has  a  /22 from its LIR. The LIR can not offer more IPv4 
spaces   and the Company X becomes a LIR to satisfy its needs. Now, it 
is logical that the LIR (if agreed between these 2 LIRs) transfers the 
space  allocated  to the Company X (now the new LIR) AND THIS have to 
not be the part from the policy -

"requirements,  such  as  the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address 
space before."

What are you thinking about?


Best Regards,


-
Sergiu IANCIUC
SC ITNS.NET SRL


MD-2068, Moldova
or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1
tel.: +373 22 877 877
fax : +373 22 44 11 73
mobile: +373 690 22 111
url: http://www.itns.md


Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to...








This is a forwarded message
From: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net>
To: ncc-announce at ripe.net
Date: Friday, April 29, 2016, 11:18:23 AM
Subject: [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE Policy Proposals - April Update


===8<==============Original message text===============
Dear colleagues,

Here is our monthly overview of open policy proposals and their stage in 
the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP).

If you wish to join the discussion about a particular proposal, please 
do so on the relevant working group mailing list.

Proposals Open for Discussion:
2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria"

Proposals Awaiting Input:
2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies"
2016-01, "Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy"


Proposal Overviews:

PROPOSAL: 2015-05, "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria"
OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4 
allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. The latest version of the 
proposal suggests several requirements, such as the LIR cannot hold more 
than a /20 IPv4, must document their IPv6 deployment and has not 
transferred any IPv4 address space before.
STATUS: Discussion Phase
WHERE TO COMMENT: Address Policy Working Group: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
DEADLINE: 13 May 2016
FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05

=====

The following proposals are awaiting input before they can go any 
further in the PDP.

PROPOSAL: 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies"
OVERVIEW: Aims to create a single transfer policy with all relevant 
information on the transfer of Internet number resources, replacing text 
in several RIPE Policies. The proposal also introduces a 24-month 
holding period for IPv4 addresses and 16-bit ASNs after any change of 
holdership.
RIPE NCC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Includes the point how the 24-month holding 
period for scarce resources will be applied.
STATUS: Review Phase – Awaiting decision from working group chair
FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04

PROPOSAL: 2016-01, "Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the 
Abuse-c Policy"
OVERVIEW: Aims for a mandatory abuse contact for Legacy Internet 
Resource holders in the RIPE Database.
STATUS: Discussion Phase – Awaiting decision from proposer
FULL PROPOSAL: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-01


The RIPE NCC provides an overview of current RIPE Policy Proposals on 
www.ripe.net:
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/current-proposals/current-policy-proposals

We look forward to your involvement in the PDP.

Kind regards,

Marco Schmidt
RIPE Policy Development Officer
RIPE NCC



===8<===========End of original message text===========