[policy-announce] [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)

[this comment is made with my view as a LIR manager]

Milton L Mueller wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>
>>Besides publishing a list of v4 resources that have been moved, 
> 
> 
> That is the sum and substance of what 2012-05 is intended to do.
> It does what ARIN and APNIC already do: provide an accessible list of resources that have been moved according to the transfer policies in place.
> 
> 
>>what does this accomplish that sub-allocations don't already do?
>>Is the recipient LIR charged according to the resources under their
>>registry file?
> 
> 
> Like the previous question that was raised, you seem to be asking questions
> about the transfer policy itself, not about this proposal. The transfer policy
> already exists and it is what it is.

Each and every existing policy is subject to review, change and/or improvement.
Thus, when there is a proposal to amend existing policy text, this might be a
good point in time to have a look at the whole set of provisions.

With that point of view I'd like to ask for clarification of the following
provision:

"
LIRs that receive a re-allocation from another LIR cannot re-allocate complete
or partial blocks of the same address space to another LIR within 24 months of
receiving the re-allocation.
"

But the receiving LIR may do so with other parts from their IPv4 address pool?
What is the motivation for that particular restriction and for that particular
wording?

And, I am wondering, whether the following restriction is (still) useful:

"
The block that is to be re-allocated must not be smaller than the minimum
allocation block size at the time of re-allocation.
"

in particular at a point in time when Registration Services has distributed
the following announcement (Sept. 4, 2012 [1] ):

	- Depending on the availability in the RIPE NCC’s free pool of IPv4
	  address space, you may receive multiple smaller prefixes that add
	  up to the size of your request.

> All this proposal does it let the community know who is using it, and to better
> assess and track its consequences.
> 
> --MM

Wwilfried

[1] Subject: RIPE NCC has Approximately Four Million IPv4 Addresses Before Reaching Last /8