[address-policy-wg] 2014-12 Last Call for Comments (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 Last Call for Comments (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 Last Call for Comments (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Erik Bais
ebais at a2b-internet.com
Mon Feb 16 11:35:53 CET 2015
Hi Nick, > the issue that concerns me is that creating a requirement for a contract > means that there is a requirement for legal people to be involved in the > transfer process. Whatever about legal wording in civil law countries (NL, > most of europe), common law countries (ie/uk/us, etc) generally tend to > benefit from more specific wording. If there is any hint of ambiguity, it > creates the possibility of argument and that is painful when it happens. There are always agreements/contracts in place, also with the current transfer processes. In this particular case you will have to think about an End-User Agreement (for PI IPv6) to be in place with an Sponsoring LIR. Also each transfer needs to be accomplished with a so called Transfer Agreement (template from RIPE). > The term "minimum assignment size" is used sloppily all over the place in > the ripe policy document store to mean different things in different > places. In this case, the wording isn't particularly ambiguous to you or > me, but it would not necessarily be clear at first sight to the man on the > Clapham omnibus. If five uncontentious words were added, this would make > its interpretation completely clear. And with that man on the Clapham omnibus you refer to a hypothetical reasonable person ... ( I had to look it up ... ) The irony .. > Weighing things up, common sense suggests that it would be more sensible to > clarify than not. > Previous policy proposals have had clarification text added between phases, > so it's possible that adding the text wouldn't necessarily delay the > proposal - obviously this is a decision for the ap-wg chairs. As we are going into a full re-styling of the Transfer Policies into a single document, we will have to see if it is going to be required to do that in this particular version or in the next re-style. There is little value imho to add clarification text here as we are going to cut the text in a couple weeks into a new document. If that new version needs a beter explanation it would make more sense in doing it there. > As a more general observation, it might be useful for a future unified > policy to differentiate between depleted resources (e.g. ipv4 / asn16) and > non depleted resources (e.g. ipv6 /asn32) and make it clear that the > cooling off period is intended depleted resources. I like the suggestion to look into the structure and difference between depleted and non depleted resources. I'll take that in mind for the Transfer doc. Thanks Nick, Regards, Erik
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 Last Call for Comments (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-12 Last Call for Comments (Allow IPv6 Transfers)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]