[address-policy-wg] the interpretation of "transfer" - somewhat related to 2012-07

Quoting Andrea's comment of today regarding "authoritative" RIR:

<quote>
 Legacy resources issued to organisations within the RIPE region have been
 transferred to the RIPE region during the ERX project. Legacy resources
 that have not been transferred at that time, have been issued and registered
 to organisations in other RIR regions.

 RIPE policy has no authority over legacy resources registered in other RIR
 regions. For this reason, in order to transfer those resources to the RIPE
 registry (and register them with a RIPE NCC LIR), there needs to be a
 transfer policy that would allow transfers between the RIPE NCC and the RIR
 that has the authority over those resources.
</quote>

First of all, I appreciate the NCC's cautious approach to moving things around
without a clear consensus and guidance on preocedures!

Two comments for discussion or clarification:

° until now I always read policies or policy proposals regarding a "transfer"
  of addresses from userA to userB. With either both of them sharing the same
  assignment to an authoritative RIR (intra-region xfr) or relating to different
  authoritative RIRs (inter-region xfr).

  The comment as quoted above indicates a different, or rather an additional
  interpretation and applicability: the transfer of address *registration* data
  pertaining to some (the very same!) userX from one authoritative RIR to a
  different one.

  I am not sure that the community did or does have that interpetation in mind?

° the "good old ERX" project, back then, was based on simple clerical inputs,
  a procedural agreement amongst the RIRs, and with no formal policy background,
  IIRC.

  Thus I do not really understand, why we would need a formal "policy" regarding
  inter-regeion transfers, as long as the registration subject remains the same.

I may have missed some things, of course.
Wilfried.