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

Hi Gert, 

I know you well enough to not take this personal and if you are not responding to me on a couple nudges, you must have a good reason for it. 

Thank you for the work and lets get started on the last call on this. 

Regards,
Erik Bais

> Op 7 feb. 2017 om 17:02 heeft Gert Doering <gert at space.net> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 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