[address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft and Impact Analysis Documents Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)

Dear Tore,

Apologies for the late reply.
>> However, given this proposal and the discussion around it, we would
>> prefer to wait until it reaches a conclusion before publishing.
> Okay. This surprises me a bit, though. The impact analysis seems to me
> to state, essentially, «we are willing to publish the requested
> information without a clear policy mandate from the community».
>
> However, your response seems to suggest the exact opposite, i.e., «we
> are NOT willing to publish the requested information without a policy
> clear mandate from the community».
>
> I don't believe anyone is proposing to *forbid* you from publishing
> information on transfers, the way I see it, the question is simply
> whether or not the community needs to compel you (through policy) to
> publish it, or not. In my opinion, it would be much more preferable to
> not have to take the policy route, since the terser and concise the
> policy text is, the better it is. The community shouldn't need to
> micro-manage the NCC through policy - it would be better and more
> efficient if we could instead work directly with you to get what we want.
>
> But now I am not so sure on whether or not the added policy text is
> required after all. Do you see any outcome of this proposal's discussion
> that would cause you to not publish the requested information after all?
Publishing the names of the few organisations that were involved in a 
transfer, in an ad-hoc manner on a public mailing list, seems premature 
since the discussion has not yet reached a conclusion, and some 
opposition has been voiced.

As indicated in the impact analysis, the RIPE NCC can publish 
information regarding transfers on ftp.ripe.net with or without a policy 
but would inform the community and membership in advance. However, now 
that there is an ongoing policy proposal,  we should wait for the 
outcome of that discussion before making any decision.

[...]
>
> However, all the allocations mentioned above are listed with the
> original date of allocation in both alloclist.txt and
> delegated-ripencc-extended. I could not find a single transaction where
> the date changed to the present day (except those blocks that went
> through the "reserved" state, which I guess means returned to the NCC
> and re-allocated normally). So while I won't ask you to confirm whether
> or not any of the above transactions are indeed the transfer the Impact
> Analysis refers to, I was wondering if you could tell whether or not the
> date of the allocation will remain unchanged as a result of a transfer?
>
We have not updated the allocation date of the transfers that we have
done so far.

Best regards,

Ingrid Wijte
Registration Services Assistant Manager
RIPE NCC