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

Hi,


On Sunday, October 23, 2016, Erik Bais <ebais at a2b-internet.com> wrote:

> Hi Ciprian,
>
>
>
> The goal of the policy have been discussed on the list and in the RIPE
> meetings … so trying to de-rail the process this late in the game, while
> you were present at the other meetings by saying that it isn’t clear … it’s
> valid anymore..
>
> I'm not tring to derail anything. Why is it so late in the game ? The
final proposal was recently published. This policy is relatively "old" and
suffered many changes so it's no point in commenting the previous versions.
I'm talking about the final, 4th version and it's the open discussion
phase. Aren't we supposed to discuss it ?

>
>
>
> Because as you may remember that was already addressed when it was brought
> up by Elvis 2 RIPE meetings ago .. and it was addressed at that point.
>
>
>
> Was that this version of the policy ? No and I think that if this was
addressed a year ago you could have changes the policy to correctly express
it's goals.

Ciprian

> Regards,
>
> Erik Bais
>
>
>
> *Van:* address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net');>] *Namens
> *Ciprian Nica
> *Verzonden:* woensdag 19 oktober 2016 19:10
> *Aan:* address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','address-policy-wg at ripe.net');>
> *Onderwerp:* Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact
> Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
>
>
>
> Regarding this policy I think it clearly states in the beginning: "The
> goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant
> information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources."
>
> I congratulate Erik for it and I think it is very useful to have a single
> document that would address all situations. But we have to make it clear.
> Is 2015-04's purpose just to better organise information or to change
> policies ?
>
> If you would have just done what the goal express I think it would have
> been the first policy that would not get only consensus but unanimity.
>
> But when you slip in some changes, then it's a different thing. I agree
> that many things are not very clear and that there are things that can be
> improved. This however should be debated properly and maybe it should be
> done one step at a time through other policy proposals.
>
> To resume, if you would change the policy text to stick to it's goal you'd
> have my +100 (as I see it's getting more popular these days than the
> classical +1) :)
>
> But since this text brings changes I can only give a -1 for not sticking
> to the goal and for bringing changes that should be treated more careful,
> not just let's do it quickly however we can and we'll figure out on the
> way. Why not make good, permanent changes which are expected by many of the
> community.
>
> Ciprian
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Ciprian Nica <office at ip-broker.uk
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','office at ip-broker.uk');>> wrote:
>
> The policy states how the statistics are presented, therefore I think this
> issue should be addressed by the policy.
>
>
>
> RIPE NCC implements the policies and if we, the RIPE community, want some
> things to be implemented in a certain way then the only way to "ask" it is
> through the policy, otherwise our voices have no value.
>
>
>
> Regarding the lack of details at point B., that is in my opinion an insult
> to the community, regardless of what the policy is about. We should not
> accept generic statements like that. If nobody bothered to really make an
> impact analysis then just say it.
>
>
>
> Ciprian
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <
> ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net');>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While I do agree with most of the concerns you present there, I'm
> wondering if this is not an issue to be discussed in some other working
> group (??? services ??? database ???). They don't seem to be related to
> the policy itself, but to the way RIPE NCC implements it and reflects
> the changes in the database.
>
> Marco ? Chairs ? anybody else ?
>
> --
> Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 11:57, Ciprian Nica wrote:
>
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I think it would be useful to list on the statistics also the broker
> that
> > > facilitated the transfer. That might be of interest to the community
> and I
> > > think the NCC should revise the transfer agreement template in order
> to be
> > > able to mention the broker and also to publish it's name on the
> transfer
> > > statistics page. Also the broker should be allowed to communicate with
> RIPE
> > > and pass information on behalf of the customers during the transfer
> process.
> > >
> > > There is also a cosmetic thing that I don't know if it needs be
> mentioned
> > > in policy in order to be implemented. The netname of the allocation
> keeps
> > > the original allocation date in it's name which can be confusing
> although
> > > there's the new "created" attribute.
> > >
> > > For example, the subnet 128.0.52.0/24 was transferred on 14/10/2016
> and
> > > it was part of an allocation with netname EU-JM-20120914. The new
> > > allocation has netname ES-SISTEC-20120914.
> > >
> > > If the date is no longer relevant in a netname then I think it should
> be
> > > simply ES-SISTEC, otherwise it can be ES-SISTEC-20161014
> > >
> > > Ciprian
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mschmidt at ripe.net%5Cx0b');>> >
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mschmidt at ripe.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mschmidt at ripe.net');>');>> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dear colleagues,
> > >>
> > >> The draft documents for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04,
> "RIPE
> > >> Resource Transfer Policies" have now been published, along with an
> impact
> > >> analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC.
> > >>
> > >> The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all
> > >> relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number
> resources.
> > >>
> > >> Some of the differences from version 3.0 include:
> > >>
> > >> - Adding a reference in all related allocation and assignment
> policies to
> > >> the new transfer policy document
> > >> - Clarification in the policy text and policy summary regarding
> transfers
> > >> due to a change in the organisation’s business (such as a merger or
> > >> acquisition)
> > >>
> > >> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
> > >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04
> > >>
> > >> And the draft documents at:
> > >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04/draft
> > >>
> > >> We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to <
> > >> address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','address-policy-wg at ripe.net');>
> > >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','address-policy-wg at ripe.net');>');>> before
> 26
> > >> October 2016.
> > >>
> > >> Regards
> > >>
> > >> Marco Schmidt
> > >> Policy Development Officer
> > >> RIPE NCC
> > >>
> > >> Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161023/7b4a562e/attachment.html>