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

Dear Address Policy WG,

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:08:32PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> 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)
[..]


first of all, my most sincere apologies for dragging my feet on this
for such a long time (and special apologies to Erik Bais as the proposer,
who is not known as a very patient man but showed extraordinary patience).


Evaluating consensus on this was a bit complicated.

 - there were a few clear voices of support for this fourth version
   (but since this has been going on for a while, I'm inclined to 
   consider supporting voices from the last rounds as "still supportive"
   for this version)

 - there was a fairly long discussion on whether M&A should be included
   in this or not - my co-chair Sander Steffann got involved in that 
   discussion, and thus completely abstained in judging the outcome.
   Reading through it again, I consider the opposing argument to be
   *addressed* - especially since these parts were included right from
   version 1, have been openly communicated at multiple RIPE meetings,
   and are not "something new and unexpected" in version 4 (Sascha 
   Luck indeed did oppose this earlier on).

 - there was even more discussion about items unrelated to the proposal
   itself, more of a whishlist what other bits could be in there (like,
   listing the broker in the transfer statistics) - changes that are
   independent on this proposal, which for "normal" transfers does not
   change policy, just reorganizes text.


Thus, I declare that we have rough consensus - more rough than in many
cases, but still rough consensus according to PDP.

With that, we move 2015-04 to Last Call.  Marco will send the formal 
announcement for that in the next days.

For reference, a list of people that voiced support or opposition (or 
something else) in the previous review phase is appended below.  This is
what I have based my decision on.

If you disagree with my interpretation of what has been said and the
conclusion I have drawn from it, please let us know.

Gert Doering,
        Address Policy WG Chair


Review Phase for V4.0, starting September 07, 2016


During the last Review Phase five persons stated their support for this latest
version of 2015-04:

Tore Anderson
Stefan van Westering
Remco van Mook
Havard Eidnes
Riccardo Gori

The following people opposed the proposal with the argument that organisations
should be allowed to transfer resources after they have freed them after a
company merger and network consolidation process:

Plesa Niculae
Ciprian Nica
Marius Cristea
Yuri NTX
Palumbio Flavia
Sascha Luck repeated his opposition that he don't want anything M&A related in
the policy text.

Havard Eidnes, Radu Adrian and Sander Steffann tried to address this
opposition by clarifying that the intention of this proposal is to prevent the
abuse of the merger loophole. Also it was said that a 24 month holding period
is not really business impacting as a network consolidation needs time anyhow
and also IP resources could be transferred before the merger takes place in
the registry. Sander also highlighted that freed 16-bit ASN can always be
returned to the RIPE NCC if not longer needed.

There were some side threads, for example Ciprian Nica asking to list the
broker in the transfer statistic and to remove the date from the allocation
netname. Erik responded that this should be done in another proposal and that
he is not taking this on board of his proposal.
Marius Cristea said that RIPE NCC should not mandate LIRs to pay the full
membership fee, should only follow policy and don't impose anything else -
clarified by Sander Steffann that this is membership related and not regulated
by RIPE policies.

Roger Jørgensen stated that is correct to use resources with policy limitation
and not treat it as a normal asset without limitation - he didn't stated a
clear support though.


-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20170207/453450ad/attachment.sig>