[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Ok. If it is better to say I agree that 2015-01 with 24 month period
restriction is enough.

Also there is the next text about ALLOCATED FINAL: Assignments and
sub-allocations cannot be kept when moving to another provider. This
allocation is not transferable to another LIR.
What does it mean? Transfers are inpossible, but when the allocations
move to another provider this case and should be returned to the NCC?

2016-10-19 12:21 GMT+03:00 Daniel Baeza <d.baeza at tvt-datos.es>:
> Hi All,
>
> -1 to this.
>
> I think the current policy that prevents tranfers for 24 months is enough.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> El 19/10/2016 a las 10:05, Marco Schmidt escribió:
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> The draft documents for version 3.0 of the policy proposal 2016-03,
>> "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" have now been published, along with an
>> impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC.
>>
>> The goal of this proposal is to ban transfers of allocations made under
>> the final /8 policy. Also the proposal specifies what resources must be
>> added to the RIPE NCC IPv4 available pool.
>>
>> Some of the differences from version 2.0 include:
>>
>> -    Clarification that changes to holdership of address space as a result
>> of company mergers or acquisitions are not affected by proposed transfer
>> restriction
>> -    Legacy space handed over to the RIPE NCC will be added to the IPv4
>> available pool
>>
>> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03
>>
>> And the draft documents at:
>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03/draft
>>
>> We want to draw your attention to two changes, which we hope it will make
>> your proposal evaluation easier.
>>
>> -    Policy proposals now contain a diff tool that allows easy comparison
>> of different proposal versions – simply click on the “View Changes” symbol
>> right beside the list of proposal versions.
>> -    The RIPE NCC impact analysis only mentions areas where  the proposal
>> is actually expected to have an impact. For example, if the analysis makes
>> no comment about financial or legal impact, it means that no such impact is
>> expected.
>>
>> We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to
>> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 17 November 2016.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Marco Schmidt
>> Policy Development Officer
>> RIPE NCC
>>
>> Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
>>
>



-- 
----------
Best regards,
Aleksey Bulgakov
Tel.: +7 (985)635-54-44