Thank you for the insight Hans Petter. 

Accuracy of the registry is the key goal for the community and should be the goal of all proposals.

We (AP-WG chairs) don’t see a clear problem description nor sufficient support to proceed with the discussion into a formal PDP process. 

We like to thank all participants for their input and view in this discussion. 

Kind regards (on behalf of the AP-WG chair collective) 

Erik Bais

From: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Hans Petter Holen <hph@oslo.net>
Reply-To: "hph@oslo.net" <hph@oslo.net>
Date: Sunday 21 July 2019 at 23:20
To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Cc: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 17:56, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote:

What I’m saying is that we force the change of status from non-legacy to legacy if addresses are transferred to a new member or an existing member, as both of them will have all the legal bindings already with RIPE NCC.

If the goal is to have a correct and updated registry adding criteria by force to transfers is counter productive.

For larger address space transactions this will simply lead to transfer of legal entities, or other legal constructs to circumvent the policies.

I belive the community should focus strongly on an accurate registry as the main principle.

Hans Petter

--

-- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net