[ncc-services-wg] 2023-03 status problem

Hi,

On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 4:11 PM Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 03:53:56PM +0200, denis walker wrote:
> > The Transfer policy says that resource CAN be
> > transferred.
>
> This implies the will of the outgoing and incoming resource holders.
>
> There is nothing in the policy that says "a resource can be transferred
> *against the will* of the current resource holder".
>
> So, the proposed lockdown is an explicit statement of the resource
> holder "it is not my wish to transfer any of my resources in the next
> 6 months".
>
> I do not see why this would be violating policy if the outgoing resource
> holder states "I do not want to transfer anything", in a format that is
> appropriate for the circumstances - notably, "whatever happens to me
> in the next months, do not believe anything else I might be forced to say".

What should the RIPE NCC do if that member later submits a
policy-compliant transfer request, during their previously requested
"transfer lockdown" period? Does the "transfer lock" mechanism
override the Transfer Policy?

Seems needlessly messy to me and far too open to interpretation. I
support the idea of clearly documenting a Transfer Lockdown mechanism
in the Transfer Policy.

"Any legitimate resource holder is allowed to transfer complete or
partial blocks of address space or number resources (IPv4, IPv6 and AS
Numbers) that were previously allocated or assigned to them by the
RIPE NCC or otherwise through the Regional Internet Registry (RIR)
system." https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-682#2-0-transfers-within-the-ripe-ncc-service-region

Regards,
James