[address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED

Returning to the initial discussion ...

Ingrid Wijte wrote:
> The WG agreed that, where the LIR can document a mutual agreement
> that they administer the address space, a conversion from PI to PA
> should take place. In all other cases, assignments with the status
> ASSIGNED PI should be treated as being assigned by the RIPE NCC.

It reads like this is already written in stone ... is it ???
 
If this would be the case, the only way to achieve this (to have PIs
out of A-PI/-U to be treated as all other PIs, give their holders the
same rights, "safety" and obligations) is 

- to split up the A-PI/-U as you proposed 
or
- move all PIs out of the A-PI/-U (or convert them to PA and move some
PIs) => renumbering PI holder, address space win for LIR 
or
- have the LIR even return the full A-PI/-U (and if wanted get back a
same sized PA) => renumbering LIR, "loss" of A-PI/-U (which brings up
again the question, if assigning "new" PIs out of A-PI/-U would be 
really against currently policy)

Did I miss anything? Even if the object could be locked within the RIPE
DB, contractual everything could be secured and e.g. RDNS is fixed as
well: the PI as being a more specific within LIR's A-PI/-U and the issues
arising of this could probably never be solved within other ways (or
it's too early).

If things suddenly don't work out any more like they did the last 15++
years and the consensus is to have it "solved", it's the question what
is the best approach, what does it mean, what are the drawbacks, is it
worth taking multiple approaches and who at the end pays the bill. 

Markus
-- 
Darmstädter Landstrasse 184      | 60598 Frankfurt        | Germany
+49 (0)178 5352346               | <Markus.Weber at kpn.DE>  | www.kpn.de

KPN EuroRings Germany B.V.       | Niederlassung Frankfurt am Main
Amtsgericht Frankfurt HRB99781   | USt.IdNr. DE 815496855
Geschäftsführer  Jesus Martinez  & Jacob Leendert Hage