[address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Policy Proposal (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)

On 8/16/13 16:13 , Sascha E. Pollok wrote:
> David, thanks for your comments.
>
> On Fri, 16 Aug 2013, David Farmer wrote:
>> I support the intent of the proposal, there are situations where it
>> seems reasonable to allow transfers of blocks with end users in them,
>> and the current blanket exclusion prevents this.
>>
>> However, I also support the original intent of the language that would
>> be removed.  I believe the intent of the original language was to
>> prevent an LIR selling off a block that has active End Users in it, at
>> least without notice or consent, etc...
>>
>> For the example case given in the proposal, it seems that consent
>> should be readily obtainable.  So, would a better solution be to add
>> "without consent of the End User(s)" to the current text.  This
>> provides flexibility without abandoning the protection the current
>> text provides to End Users.
>
> In the rationale I used this expressions:
>
> "... it should be possible to transfer a continuous block from one LIR
> into an allocation and correct assignments of the new LIR while
> preserving the assignments." - I wanted to make clear that the new LIR
> would of course inherit End-User assignments and also the
> responsibilities for them.

The whole sentence in the rationale was;

     In case a new LIR is created by a company that is currently using PA
     space from an existing LIR, it should be possible to transfer a
     continuous block from one LIR into an allocation and correct
     assignments of the new LIR while preserving the assignments.

I think the first part adds significant context.  I interpreted the 
transfer in question was to an organization that was previously assigned 
the block as an end user and is now the new LIR in question.

I was simply saying in the use case presented "consent should be readily 
obtainable."  In my opinion this use case provides clear justification 
for a transfer with the assignments in tact, but doesn't necessarily 
justify abandoning the original intent of the language, it can be 
accommodated without such a radical change.

> You think the End-Users should get involved into a planned transfer of
> an allocation to a new LIR? It might not be realistic to ask hundreds
> of End-Users for permission to transfer an allocation. Is that what you
> were suggesting?

The specific use case provided in the rationale, as I interpret it, 
doesn't involve hundreds of End Users. Maybe I misunderstand or 
misinterpreted the use case.

If there are other cases you want to cover maybe include some of the 
other use cases in the rationale as well.  Maybe these other use cases 
would justify abandoning the original intent of the current language.

Thanks.
-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================