[address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Milton L Mueller
mueller at syr.edu
Thu Sep 6 14:53:57 CEST 2012
> -----Original Message----- > Let's say I want to transfer an allocation to another LIR, and want the > fact that I've been dealing with said LIR to remain a secret until the > deal is done. If the deal falls through due to the failure of the > recipient LIR to justify their need for the transferred resource, I > don't want the fact I was in negotiations to transfer away 192.0.2.0/24 > to become public knowledge. OK, this is a valid concern, imho. I would propose to modify the language such that statistical aggregates are published rather than individual blocks. > Also, if the goal of the identification is to combat discrimination in > need assessment, isn't it the *receiving* LIR that should be identified? Correct. Would you object if they were? Would others? > I have no objection to having the NCC publish aggregate information > about how many transfer tickets they've handled and how many of them > was approved. That said, I'm not so sure we would need to have a policy for > it, it might be simpler to just ask them to publish the information in > aggregate form. For example, they do something along those lines at > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/tools-for- > lirs/reponse-time-ipv4 > without there being any policy compelling them to. Whatever is easier. > So yes indeed, <RIPE[sic] could easily make this accessible to all with > a few keystrokes>. They have stated a willingness to do so, too. So why > do we need to change policy, exactly? The PDP is a slow process. It > seems to me that it is faster to just ask the NCC to start publishing > the desired information. If they refuse to do so, then let's look into > compelling them through policy. Valid points! But on the other hand if we ask them to do it and they don't, then the process becomes even slower, doesn't it? I would prefer to go ahead with the policy change, but as you suggest remove the stuff about failed needs assessments, turn that into a request from RIPE for aggregate statistics. Are we in agreement on that? If so, I will propose a specific modification of the proposal
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]