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

Hello all,

Just before the review phase ends, I'd like to express my agreement with
this proposal.

[X] yes, this makes sense, go there

Keeping all transfer policies in a single document is much more convenient
than searching within scattered documents.

I also strongly support Remco's suggestion to reference this policy in the
other policy documents

--
George



On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Erik Bais <erik at bais.name> wrote:

> Hi Sascha & Daniel,
>
> The reason for using the term "scares resource", is because we
> can't/shouldn't use the term "depleted'..
>
> If one would use the term "Depleted' the NCC might say that the pool isn't
> completely empty yet.. so it isn't depleted yet..
> Which would mean that there is, until it is really empty, no transfer
> restriction.  ( that is a different discussion.. )
>
> The community suggested in the last 2 RIPE meetings that the transfer
> restrictions should not apply for 32 bits ASN and IPv6..
>
> The policy proposal states :
>
> > 2.2 Transfer Restrictions
> > Scarce resources, which are understood as those resources that are
> allocated or assigned by the RIPE NCC on a restricted basis (such as IPv4
> or 16-bit ASNs), cannot be transferred for 24 months from the date the
> resource
> > was received by the resource holder.
>
> The Impact Analyses states :
>
> > Holding Period for Scarce Resources
> > The RIPE NCC understands “scarce resources” to include IPv4 PA, IPv4 PI
> and 16-bit AS Numbers. If the community declares other resources to be
> scarce, the list of resources for which the holding period will apply will
> be adjusted accordingly.
>
> The policy proposal dictates what a scares resource is (after community
> discussion in the last 2 RIPE meetings) and it is the policy that is
> leading here..
>
> The Impact Analyses of the RIPE NCC, is what the RIPE NCC thinks what is
> written and intended by the policy.. and they are re-hashing what we did
> and how additional 'future' scares resources might need to be defined in
> the future.
>
> If the community declares other resources to be scarce, the list of
> resources for which the holding period will apply will be adjusted
> accordingly..
> And as that is a policy change, it should go through the PDP process.
>
> I think that what you are asking is what is already in the proposal and
> what you are looking for in a procedure, is already what is the used
> process ...
>
> If not, what are we missing ?
>
> Regards,
> Erik Bais
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160301/05ce6e5d/attachment.html>