[address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Erik Bais - A2B Internet
ebais at a2b-internet.com
Tue Feb 7 21:18:59 CET 2017
Hi Gert, I know you well enough to not take this personal and if you are not responding to me on a couple nudges, you must have a good reason for it. Thank you for the work and lets get started on the last call on this. Regards, Erik Bais > Op 7 feb. 2017 om 17:02 heeft Gert Doering <gert at space.net> het volgende geschreven: > > Dear Address Policy WG, > >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 03:08:32PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: >> The draft documents for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04, "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies" have now been published, along with an impact analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. >> >> The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources. >> >> Some of the differences from version 3.0 include: >> >> - Adding a reference in all related allocation and assignment policies to the new transfer policy document >> - Clarification in the policy text and policy summary regarding transfers due to a change in the organisation???s business (such as a merger or acquisition) > [..] > > > first of all, my most sincere apologies for dragging my feet on this > for such a long time (and special apologies to Erik Bais as the proposer, > who is not known as a very patient man but showed extraordinary patience). > > > Evaluating consensus on this was a bit complicated. > > - there were a few clear voices of support for this fourth version > (but since this has been going on for a while, I'm inclined to > consider supporting voices from the last rounds as "still supportive" > for this version) > > - there was a fairly long discussion on whether M&A should be included > in this or not - my co-chair Sander Steffann got involved in that > discussion, and thus completely abstained in judging the outcome. > Reading through it again, I consider the opposing argument to be > *addressed* - especially since these parts were included right from > version 1, have been openly communicated at multiple RIPE meetings, > and are not "something new and unexpected" in version 4 (Sascha > Luck indeed did oppose this earlier on). > > - there was even more discussion about items unrelated to the proposal > itself, more of a whishlist what other bits could be in there (like, > listing the broker in the transfer statistics) - changes that are > independent on this proposal, which for "normal" transfers does not > change policy, just reorganizes text. > > > Thus, I declare that we have rough consensus - more rough than in many > cases, but still rough consensus according to PDP. > > With that, we move 2015-04 to Last Call. Marco will send the formal > announcement for that in the next days. > > For reference, a list of people that voiced support or opposition (or > something else) in the previous review phase is appended below. This is > what I have based my decision on. > > If you disagree with my interpretation of what has been said and the > conclusion I have drawn from it, please let us know. > > Gert Doering, > Address Policy WG Chair > > > Review Phase for V4.0, starting September 07, 2016 > > > During the last Review Phase five persons stated their support for this latest > version of 2015-04: > > Tore Anderson > Stefan van Westering > Remco van Mook > Havard Eidnes > Riccardo Gori > > The following people opposed the proposal with the argument that organisations > should be allowed to transfer resources after they have freed them after a > company merger and network consolidation process: > > Plesa Niculae > Ciprian Nica > Marius Cristea > Yuri NTX > Palumbio Flavia > Sascha Luck repeated his opposition that he don't want anything M&A related in > the policy text. > > Havard Eidnes, Radu Adrian and Sander Steffann tried to address this > opposition by clarifying that the intention of this proposal is to prevent the > abuse of the merger loophole. Also it was said that a 24 month holding period > is not really business impacting as a network consolidation needs time anyhow > and also IP resources could be transferred before the merger takes place in > the registry. Sander also highlighted that freed 16-bit ASN can always be > returned to the RIPE NCC if not longer needed. > > There were some side threads, for example Ciprian Nica asking to list the > broker in the transfer statistic and to remove the date from the allocation > netname. Erik responded that this should be done in another proposal and that > he is not taking this on board of his proposal. > Marius Cristea said that RIPE NCC should not mandate LIRs to pay the full > membership fee, should only follow policy and don't impose anything else - > clarified by Sander Steffann that this is membership related and not regulated > by RIPE policies. > > Roger Jørgensen stated that is correct to use resources with policy limitation > and not treat it as a normal asset without limitation - he didn't stated a > clear support though. > > > -- > 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
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2016-04 Review Phase (IPv6 PI Sub-assignment Clarification)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]