[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ciprian Nica
office at ip-broker.uk
Wed Oct 19 16:10:15 CEST 2016
Hi, I was refering to 2015-04 and I was wrong to accuse you of hypocrisy. I understand now that you don't support the policy change which would "ban" regular transfer after mergers. I like the policies as they are and 2015-04 would be great if it would only compact the policies and not bring important changes. Ciprian On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 04:28:25PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > I never said Gert did something that was against any policy. Probably he > > never did such things. But he clearly took advantage of the merger & > > acquisition procedure and now he tries to close it through the policy > > 2015-04. Isn't this hypocrisy ? > > OK, *this* is something that needs an answer - which is unfortunate, > because > I wanted to let this thread die silently. > > I am not the proposer of 2015-04, so I certainly do not "try to do anything > through the policy 2015-04". Erik Bais is. > > I'm not sure if I have commented on the merits of 2015-04 before - I might > have, in discussions about the merits of having a single transfer policy > document vs. lots of fragments in other policy documents, but certainly > not on the aspect of "after a M&A, transfers of acquired space is no > longer possible for 24 months". > > If you try to actually understand what this document says: > > "The proposal extends the 24-month transfer restriction to resources > that have been transferred due to changes to an organisation?s > business structure (such as a merger or acquisition). It is important > to note that this restriction only prevents policy transfers ? > resources subject to this restriction may still be transferred due > to further mergers or acquisitions within the 24-month period." > > this in no way interacts with "company A buys company B, including their > resources" - if in effect, it would deny company A from selling off B's > resources afterward - which is not what we do, or intend to do. > > > In case you're confusing 2015-04 (in your text) with 2016-03 (in the > subject), it should be pointed out that 2016-03 very explicitely states: > > "5.5 Transfers of Allocations > ... > 4. Point 3 of this article does not apply to any change of holdership > of address space as a result of company mergers or acquisitions" > > The very first version of 2016-03 would have required holders of multiple > /22s, no matter how they came to hold them, to return all but one - but > that was changed, not by *my* doing, but because the community made it > very clear that that was not wanted. > > > So, whatever point you are trying to make > > - I'm not the proposer of any of these proposals > - AND neither of them disallows merges & acquisitions of LIRs with /22s > > > > But let's not mix the discussions. My main concern is that two policies > > which are not properly discussed and approved by the community, which > seem > > far from having a consensus (as far as I can see) will most likely be > seen > > by the chair as perfect solutions that need to be implemented right away > > and he will say that there is consensus even if it isn't. > > Now that's an interesting point, and shows you've totally read and > understood > my summary on the discussion phase of 2016-03 v2.0 :-) (especially the > bits > about "proposer's decision" and "more support needed in review phase"). > > ... and the bits about "If you disagree with my interpretation..." that are > at the end of every declaration of consensus - and have indeed prompted > corrections in the past. > > > > I would remind you that it was another policy when Gert stepped down and > > admitted that he wouldn't consider himself objective enough and let > Sanders > > take the decision. If he can't be objective enough from time to time, > then > > ... just praise him, what else would you do ? > > There are cases where I clearly *want* to take a side - and then I say so, > and put down the chair duties for these. > > > So - can we stick to the merits or not of the proposal in the Subject: > line now (which happens to be 2016-03)? If not, please change the > Subject: to something that makes it clear that this is personal, and not > related to the specific policies at hand. > > Dear WG participants: please see that we can let this thread re-focus. > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161019/f4113787/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]