[ncc-services-wg] Voluntary Transfer Lock V2

Good day, 

Maksym brings up an excellent point. I share the belief that policy points need to be explicitly stated, preventing any potential manipulation in the future

Best regards, 
Olena Kushnir 
CEO WEB PRO LLC 

> 29 серп. 2023 р. о 07:02 Максим Смелянец <maxim.smelyanets3 at gmail.com> пише:
> 
> 
> Hello for everyone!
> 
> In general I agree with the new policy text, thanks for all your efforts and work. 
> 
> But I also have some questions and wishes. 
> 
> There are some notices in the Impact Analysis as «There might be situations where the RIPE NCC cannot enforce the Lock. If the RIPE NCC receives a legally binding decision/order related to Internet number resources under a Lock, the RIPE NCC will have to comply with the order. The RIPE NCC might also not be able to enforce the Lock if it is against any applicable laws or regulations». Can you concretize what does it mean «binding decision/order»? And when you write about the «any applicable lows and regulations» - what exactly it meant by this? The same applies to the text of the policy itself in the paragraph Implementation Choices when you wrote about restrictions from any applicable laws or regulations. It is not clear what applicable lows do you mean. Because for example for Ukrainian holders it can be read as you can apply also low of occupying authorities.
> 
> And my wish is to clarify all exceptions of the inability to enforce the lock and provide a comprehensive list of cases that constitute an exception, or provide criteria for determining the relevant situations in further accompanying documents or in the final version of the policy. Because the lack of clarity may lead to inconsistent decision-making and the implementation of the RIPE NCC blocking mechanism.
> 
> With best regards to everyone,
> 
> 
> Maxim Smelyanets.
> -- 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/