- address-policy-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-03 Discussion Period extended until 22 October 2012 (Intra-RIR transfer policy)
by Tore Anderson 24 Sep '12

24 Sep '12

* Emilio Madaio > We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments > to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 22 October 2012. I am really struggling with this sentence: «Other than for an additional allocation, for the purpose of determining need, a period of 24 months is used in evaluating a transferred allocation.» The interpretation I eventually ended up with, is that it means that the new 24 month period only comes into effect for initial allocations, i.e., only for transfers where the recipient LIR holds no IPv4 PA allocations. For transfers where the recipient LIR has an additional allocation, the effective need period will still be three months. Is that correct? In any case, I think it would be good this sentence could be rewritten so it is easier to understand. Another thing I am wondering about, is the new 24 month period. Prior to «Run Out Fairly», the period was 12 months. This was determined by 2006-06, which intended to harmonise the need period across the five regions. With that in mind, I would like to see why 24 months was chosen. Is 2006-06's rationale no longer valid? What are the need periods currently used for allocation transfers in the other regions? Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

1 0

2012-03 Discussion Period extended until 22 October 2012 (Intra-RIR transfer policy)
by Emilio Madaio 24 Sep '12

24 Sep '12

Dear Colleagues, The text of the policy proposal 2012-03, "Intra-RIR transfer policy" has been revised. We have published the new version (version 2.0) today. As a result a new Discussion Phase is set for the proposal until 22 October 2012. Highlights of the changes: -additional wording on the second paragraph of section 5.5 You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-03 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 22 October 2012. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2012-02 Discussion Period extended until 22 October 2012 (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)
by Emilio Madaio 24 Sep '12

24 Sep '12

Dear Colleagues, The Discussion Period for the proposal 2012-02,"Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space", has been extended until 22 October 2012. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Temporary Internet Assignments policy
by Nick Hilliard 19 Sep '12

19 Sep '12

There's a thread on nanog-l at the moment about temporary internet assignments: > http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2012-September/051655.html I had already booked a slot in the AP-WG under AOB to talk about this because the policy is broken and needs fixing. Specifically, the timescales specified in the policy allow the assignment to be made one week before use: the consistent feedback is that this isn't enough time for large conference organisers to get things organised in time. The problems we're trying to address are: - enough time for debogonisation - enough time for pre-configuring equipment prior to shipment (which can be weeks in advance) - not knowing well in advance what address ranges you're going to get causes massive headaches, which is exactly what you don't need coming up to a frenzied configuration - conference attendees often arrive several days earlier than the conference formally starts, and they expect teh interwebs to work There are a couple of options for dealing with this: 1. specify new time limits (e.g. receive one month in advance, hand back one week after) 2. don't specify time limits but allow the IPRAs to have discretion on what seems sensible to them 3. keep the current time limits but ask the RIPE NCC whether it would be possible to implement a booking system. I.e. your assignment would only be active during the requested time period, but you would know well in advance what the options were. If anyone has opinions on which of these they prefer (or any other suggestions on how to deal with the issue), can you either post here or let me know off-list and I'll summarise at RIPE65 in advance of posting a policy amendment for ripe-526 shortly after the meeting? Nick

10 12

RIPE 553 & last /8 <-> Anycast assignments
by Carsten Schiefner 18 Sep '12

18 Sep '12

All - as I have just discussed this privately with a colleague: is it the case that as a side effect of section 5.6 "Use of last /8 for PA Allocations" of RIPE 553: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-553#-----use-of-last-8-for-pa-allocatio… there won't be any more Anycast assignments following section 6.9 "Anycasting TLD and Tier 0/1 ENUM Nameservers" of this policy: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-553#-----anycastying-tld-and-tier-1-enu… either? As such 'Assignments for authoritative TLD or ENUM Tier 0/1 DNS lookup services are subject to the policies described in the RIPE Document entitled "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region"' as this section states. I tried various ways of interpretation, but failed to come to terms eventually. Any hints, anyone? Thanks and best, Carsten

2 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Erik Bais 17 Sep '12

17 Sep '12

Dear Emilio & Nick, Thanks for the update on the proposal. I would like to state that I'm not in favor of this policy change. Obviously it is very appealing to open up the last /8 also for end-user assignments, even with the additions of limiting only to a /24 max. But I'm afraid that there will be a run on the last possible addresses and that there won't be any IP space left for new LIR's if they require it. ( Do I even dare to state anything about routing table explosion because of it ? ) For me this is a no-go policy change. IPv4 is over in a couple weeks in the RIPE region. Let's move on. Regards, Erik Bais

23 49

Re: [address-policy-wg] Revert Run Out Fairly after IPv4 depletion
by Hank Nussbacher 14 Sep '12

14 Sep '12

> > Dear Colleagues > > > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-553, "IPv4 Address Allocation > > and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now > > available for discussion. > > > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 > >I see the noble goal of this proposal - but why bother? Do we have even >enough time for this proposal to become valid policy change according to >all valid rules of PDP? > >http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-po… > >According to this graph we have one month to go. > >Cheers, Jan Zorz Reading over http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion 5.0 states "As of 1 July 2011, the RIPE NCC will start allocating enough address space to LIRs to meet their needs for a period of up to three months." Can someone explain to me how these two recent allocations fit into this rule (extracted from the delegated file): ripencc|IR|ipv4|5.112.0.0|1048576|20120629|allocated ripencc|IR|ipv4|5.208.0.0|1048576|20120904|allocated -Hank

8 17

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Policy Proposal (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
by McTim 14 Sep '12

14 Sep '12

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-553, "IPv4 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now > available for discussion. Besides publishing a list of v4 resources that have been moved, what does this accomplish that sub-allocations don't already do? Is the recipient LIR charged according to the resources under their registry file? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel

8 14

Re: [address-policy-wg] Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion
by Hamed Shafaghi 14 Sep '12

14 Sep '12

Hi, Now I’m seeking for at least /14 IPv4 space for inter-RIR transfer, if anybody know company that have This size (Or not less than /15) please inform me, this is critical request. -- I Hamed Shafaghi I I Managing Director I I Skydsl® Telecom I hamed(a)skydsl.ir I www.skydsl.ir I

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] Now that final /8 policy may be in action ...
by Hamed Shafaghi 14 Sep '12

14 Sep '12

It’s a shame, a company with fraudulent methods receive 1 million IP address for next three months but my company after giving all requested statics will receive /22 subnet instead of at least /14 subnet!!! On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Martin Millnert <millnert(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Hamed, > > Yes, it's a lottery! > > Sorry that you didn't win. > > I didn't either, tried to get a PI out. :) But didn't get it. > > Best, > Martin > > On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 18:47 +0430, Hamed Shafaghi wrote: > > It’s a shame, a company with fraudulent methods receive 1 million IP > > address for next three months but my company after giving all > > requested statics will receive /22 subnet instead of at least /14 > > subnet!!! > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 6:37 PM, Martin Millnert <millnert(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 15:56 +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > > > The delegated-ripencc-extended-latest shows which blocks > > were free at the start of the day, then it's just a matter of > > some whois queries to figure out the rest. > > > > > > Right now it seems 128.0.107.0-128.0.111.255 are still free, > > plus those five /24s out of 192/8 I listed earlier. And maybe > > those /25+es (didn't check as I'm on the road at the moment). > > So it's pretty much all gone now. > > > > > > Tore > > > > > > Right, as per the announcements [1][2] as well, we're > > officially in > > final /8 land now, and IPRAs ran the "available pool" down to > > the > > ground. > > > > So, somewhere between 35-60M EUR locked up for the RIPE NCC > > now, from > > one-shot-LIRs, with current policy. Does the RIPE NCC need all > > this > > money or will that complicate things, especially w.r.t IPv4 as > > an asset > > issues? Or does it matter what we do? > > > > IPv4 just became an asset in this land regardless. :-) > > > > Best, > > Martin > > > > [1] > > > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2012-September/000615.h… > > [2] > > > https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/ripe-ncc-begins-to-allocate… > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > I Hamed Shafaghi I > > I Managing Director I > > > > I Skydsl® Telecom I hamed(a)skydsl.ir I www.skydsl.ir I > > > -- I Hamed Shafaghi I I Managing Director I I Skydsl® Telecom I hamed(a)skydsl.ir I www.skydsl.ir I

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] Now that final /8 policy may be in action ...
by Tore Anderson 14 Sep '12

14 Sep '12

The delegated-ripencc-extended-latest shows which blocks were free at the start of the day, then it's just a matter of some whois queries to figure out the rest. Right now it seems 128.0.107.0-128.0.111.255 are still free, plus those five /24s out of 192/8 I listed earlier. And maybe those /25+es (didn't check as I'm on the road at the moment). So it's pretty much all gone now. Tore Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist(a)gmail.com>: On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Tore Anderson <tore.anderson(a)redpill-linpro.com> wrote: > The IPRAs are most definitively at work today. At the time of writing, > only the following prefixes are, as far as I can tell, still available: Are you trawling the RIPE db or how did you arrive at that conclusion? We (#networker) would really like to know. -- Richard

3 2

Now that final /8 policy may be in action ...
by Martin Millnert 14 Sep '12

14 Sep '12

Hi, I'm looking at https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/tools-for-lirs/repons… and jump to the conclusion that we're now in final /8 policy land, and IPRAs are out drinking. Whether this conclusion is indeed correct is irrelevant, we at close of business yesterday had 830k remaining addresses above final /8,/13. For those that are not clear on the policy on when final /8 will get enacted, the answer is: as soon as a request is approved that will run into final /8 space to fulfill (ie. minimum a /12, today), final /8 policy will get triggered *before* this allocation is made, and the requestor in question gets the first /22 from the final /8 (if PA request) otherwise nothing (if PI). (consensus from an IRC channel) With that out of the way, there are then no more PI allocations. Ever. (Well, until policy changes.) The result is now that the established market price for an IP address in the RIPE service region is $signup_fee + $first_period / /22, or 1024 addresses. That's roughly ~2.3 EUR / IPv4 address now in Q3, soon Q4. Will go up Q1 next year. (Adjust for my misunderstanding on what the minimum cost is here) This equates to roughly 35M EUR now heading RIPE's way. The question is: Is this a good thing? This will go faster than many anticipated with the current policy. The reason it will go fast is simply along the lines of the following example: Company X wants IPv4; their ordinary LIR (mothership) now simply applies for new-LIR in Company X name, gets a valid minimum alloc, and then just transfers this back to the mothership and new-LIR is retired ASAP. Adjust for shell-companies, etc, and the direct exchange of Money vs IPv4 addresses between RIPE NCC and the "market" has been fast. The only thing I'm not sure on here, which basically only affects the per-IPv4 price, is what the minimum cost of signing-up and then retiring a new LIR is. Should it *not* be a good thing to transfer 35M EUR to the RIPE NCC in max ~1 year time, we could just allow PI again and just be done with this whole thing. Best, Martin

4 3

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Tore Anderson 12 Sep '12

12 Sep '12

* Emilio Madaio > The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-04 has been > published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal > has also been published In principle, I support this proposal. Reserving the last /8 to the «LIR clique» is unfair to End Users who are not LIRs, but who may very well have an equally justifiable demand for IPv4 addresses as any LIR. In fact, I feel that the proposal does not go far enough - in my opinion, both LIRs and End Users should be able to get the same amount of address space from the last /8. I note that in the APNIC region, LIRs and End Users can both get up to a /22 from the last /8. I would prefer it if this was the case in the RIPE region as well. That said, I do fear the practical consequences of this proposal. As the possibility to get PA assignments will be dwindling, End Users may look to PI (quite possibly guided there by their ISP who can be a sponsoring LIR). The current difference in pricing between PI and PA address space is a key element of my worry here - a PI assignment costs €50/year, while becoming a LIR and getting the PA /22 would under the proposed 2012 charging scheme cost €1750 (€1000 sign-up fee + €750 yearly fee). In other words, acquiring PA address space is almost nine times as expensive as PI address space. Furthermore End Users may feel it compelling to set up several legal organisations in order to acquire multiple PI assignments from the last /8. This problem is nothing new - under the current policy, an organisation may set up multiple LIRs and receive multiple /22s from the last /8, but the expense of RIPE NCC membership is likely balancing out the cost/benefit assessment. The cost of PI address space, on the other hand, is too small to be a disincentive. I also note that the Impact Analysis warns that this policy may lead to increased fees for members, which would be an undesirable consequence. I don't feel that the members should be sponsoring the non-members; equal access to addresses from the last /8 should mean equal monetary contribution to the NCC. So to sum up - I feel that PI assignments should be allowed from the last /8. However, if they are, I strongly feel that they should be priced more or less the same (per address) as getting an allocation from the last /8 through first becoming an LIR. That said, I don't know if APWG have any influence on the NCC's charging scheme at all. Is it possible for this policy to say something along the lines of «joining the NCC and obtaining a PA allocation from the last /8 should cost approximately the same per address as obtaining a PI assignment from the last /8»? Is that in scope of address policy? (Just to be clear: I am not stating neither support or opposition to the proposal.) -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com

4 7

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Andreas Larsen 11 Sep '12

11 Sep '12

I do NOT support this change. // Andreas Den 2012-09-10 14:16 skrev Emilio Madaio <emadaio(a)ripe.net>: > > > >Dear Colleagues, > >The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-04 has been >published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal >has also been published > > >You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 > >and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04/draft > >We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments >to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 8 October. > >Regards > >Emilio Madaio >Policy Development Officer >RIPE NCC > >

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Daniel Roesen 11 Sep '12

11 Sep '12

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 02:16:44PM +0200, Emilio Madaio wrote: > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04/draft I do fully support this proposal. Thanks Nick for bringing up that issue which I missed when the last-/8 policy proposal was on the table. To those who ask for "same price tag" for both PA and PI on grounds of "fairness"... What is fair in asking the same price for what is essentially a one-time operation (PI assignment) compared to the ongoing maintenance of a LIR membership (PA alloc - think about assignment request tickets, yearly billing, etc.)? Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr(a)cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

6 8

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by marcin＠leon.pl 10 Sep '12

10 Sep '12

On 10.09.2012 14:16, Emilio Madaio wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-04 has been > published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal > has also been published > > > You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 Looks good, have my support. Regards, Marcin > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any > comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 8 October. > > Regards > > Emilio Madaio > Policy Development Officer > RIPE NCC

1 0

2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)
by Emilio Madaio 10 Sep '12

10 Sep '12

Dear Colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-04 has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-04/draft We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 8 October. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
by Sander Steffann 07 Sep '12

07 Sep '12

Dear Address Policy WG, There has been no feedback on policy proposal 2012-05 since it entered the review phase: > The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-05, > "Transparency in Address Block Transfers", has been published. The > Impact Analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been > published. > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 > > and the draft document at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05/draft > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 31 August 2012. We have almost reached the end of the review phase. Without feedback from the WG this policy proposal cannot proceed. Please let us know what you think of this policy proposal, or if you think more time is needed to discuss it. Thank you, Sander Steffann APWG Co-chair

11 22

Cosmetic Surgery Project: Review Period on Version 2 of Draft Document, for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space
by Emilio Madaio 06 Sep '12

06 Sep '12

Dear colleagues, As part of the Cosmetic Surgery Project, the RIPE NCC is moving forward with a review of the policy document ripe-302, "Policy for Reverse Address Delegation of IPv4 and IPv6 address space in the RIPE NCC Service Region". After the feedback in the previous review phase, a new draft (2.0) of the policy document is online and ready for community review at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/readability/improving-the-readability-of-ripe-doc… The highlights of the changes from the previous version include: -the removal of all unnecessary references to "reverse resolution" -the rewording and simplification of section 4.0 In response to the community's request: -section 3.0 focuses on who is able to ask for the delegation -the reference to the obsolete RFC 2874 has been replaced with the relevant active RFCs The Address Policy Working Group Co-Chairs decided to extend the review period until 3 October 2012 to allow the community more time to give their feedback. Please send your feedback on this draft document to the Address Policy Working Group at: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>. Kind regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

3 2

Status request : 2012-04 - PI Assignments from the last /8
by Erik Bais 05 Sep '12

05 Sep '12

Hi, Could someone provide insight in the policy 2012-04? With the final /8 within grasp, I would like to have it clear where we stand. Current Phase Ends: 19 July 2012 Current Phase: Discussion Phase: Awaiting Decision from Proposer Awaiting Documentation Regards, Erik Bais

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-06 New Policy Proposal (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion)
by Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si 04 Sep '12

04 Sep '12

On 9/3/12 3:50 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote: > Dear Colleagues > > A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-553, "IPv4 Address Allocation > and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now > available for discussion. > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 I see the noble goal of this proposal - but why bother? Do we have even enough time for this proposal to become valid policy change according to all valid rules of PDP? http://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-po… According to this graph we have one month to go. Cheers, Jan Zorz

5 6

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-06 New Policy Proposal (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion)
by Nick Hilliard 03 Sep '12

03 Sep '12

On 03/09/2012 14:50, Emilio Madaio wrote: > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 1 October 2012. This policy is sensible. Nick

2 1

2012-06 New Policy Proposal (Revert "Run Out Fairly" after IPv4 depletion)
by Emilio Madaio 03 Sep '12

03 Sep '12

Dear Colleagues A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-553, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-06 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> before 1 October 2012. Regards Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

2012-05 Review Period extended until 17 September 2012 (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
by Emilio Madaio 03 Sep '12

03 Sep '12

Dear Colleagues, The Review Period for the proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-553 has been extended until 17 September 2012. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net>. Regards, Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-05 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Transparency in Address Block Transfers)
by Brenden Kuerbis 29 Aug '12

29 Aug '12

I believe some comments were previously expressed: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-August/007031… I support those comments. I also agree with the portion of RIPE's impact analysis which proposes to anonymize refused transfer data. The point of having that particular data is to see how much is being refused, rather than to know specifically who was refused. Regards, --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Postdoctoral Fellow, Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto || http://citizenlab.org Postdoctoral Researcher, iSchool, Syracuse University || http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> wrote: > Dear Address Policy WG, > > There has been no feedback on policy proposal 2012-05 since it entered the > review phase: > > > The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-05, > > "Transparency in Address Block Transfers", has been published. The > > Impact Analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been > > published. > > > > You can find the full proposal at: > > > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05 > > > > and the draft document at: > > > > https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05/draft > > > > We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments > > to address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 31 August 2012. > > We have almost reached the end of the review phase. Without feedback from > the WG this policy proposal cannot proceed. Please let us know what you > think of this policy proposal, or if you think more time is needed to > discuss it. > > Thank you, > Sander Steffann > APWG Co-chair > > > > >

2 1