[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi,


Il 17/06/2016 07:41, Tore Anderson ha scritto:
> * Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis at velea.eu>
>
>> Additionally, it would still apply retroactively and people which since
>> 2012 until 'yesterday' were allocated PA/transferable IPs (2 years after
>> the moment of the allocation) will end up with an allocation that is no
>> longer transferable.
> Elvis, while there are valid arguments against this proposal, this is
> not one of them.
>
> If it was, then we could essentially just disband the AP-GW as pretty
> much every single policy proposal ever made would "apply
> retroactively". Including the ones that made various forms of transfers
> possible in the first place; suddenly, many old non-transferable blocks
> were "retroactively" changed to become transferable.
>
> Note that the RIPE NCC SSA says:
>
>> Article 6 – Compliance
>>
>> 6.1 The Member acknowledges applicability of, and adheres to, the RIPE
>> Policies and RIPE NCC procedural documents. The RIPE Policies and the
>> RIPE NCC procedural documents are publicly available from the RIPE NCC
>> Document Store. These documents, which may be revised and updated from
>> time to time, form an integral part of and apply fully to the RIPE NCC
>> Standard Service Agreement.
> A member who believes that transferability is an immutable and
> everlasting property of address space has not read what they've signed.
>
> If this proposal truly "applied retroactively" with regards to
> transfers, it would have had to annul all the transfers *made prior to
> its adoption* and stated the previously transferred address space was
> to be forcibly returned to its original holder or the NCC.
>
>> I do not like policy proposals that apply retroactively
> Uhm, so what about your 2015-01 proposal then? That one "applied
> retroactively" no less than this one.
I don't think 2015-01 apply retroactively.
I think allocation made before implementation of 2015-01 are free from 
limitations.
I'll open a ticket about it and check and let you know.
>
> Anyway. I withdraw my earlier objection to 2016-03. I'm not at all
> convinced it's a good idea or worth the trouble, but if the community
> really wants to go down this road I won't try to block the path.
> Consider me neutral/abstaining.
>
> Tore
>
regards
Riccardo
-- 

Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail: rgori at wirem.net
Mobile:  +39 339 8925947
Mobile:  +34 602 009 437
Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943

WIREM Fiber Revolution
Net-IT s.r.l.
Via Cesare Montanari, 2
47521 Cesena (FC)
Tel +39 0547 1955485
Fax +39 0547 1950285

--------------------------------------------------------------------
	CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re-
plying to info at wirem.net
         Thank you
WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160617/52ddd1a8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logoWirem_4cm_conR.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 41774 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160617/52ddd1a8/attachment.jpg>