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

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 02:54:59PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:23 PM, Dan Luedtke <maildanrl at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > <provoking>I don't see how anyone can be against this
> proposal.</provoking>
> >
> > I don't see the real world benefit of the proposal, there are
> insufficient
> > arguments for it, and I'm therefore with Tore on this one.
> >
> > (So now you perhaps see how anyone _can_ be against it.)
>
> Uh.  Can you please be a bit more explicit, as not everybody might remember
> Tore's stance on this?
>

Oh, I'm terribly sorry, that was extremely clumsy of me!

Tore's stance is here:

http://lists.ripe.net/pipermail/address-policy-wg/2012-September/007063.html


> I take it that you are opposing the proposal?  Any variant of the proposal,
> or would you support the "publish, but anonymize rejected transfers"
> option?
>

The stance that I'm agreeing with is regarding publication of rejected
transfers and rejected pre-approvals, so "publish, but anonymize rejected
transfers/pre-approvals" is good with me.

And, for the record, I agree with the notion that the NCC may:

- publish aggregates
- historical versions of alloclist.txt

without any change in policy.


> It's a bit hard for the chairs to figure out which way to go if opinions
> are not stated clearly...
>

Yes, absolutely, and I apologize for being fuzzy. This is one of the times
where a "me, too" is insufficient. :)

-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20120906/16ecc27f/attachment.html>