Hi,
I also like the new proposed text. It addresses all of the concerns I had with the previous one and this time it is very clean and simple.
+1 from me.
cheers,
elvis
On 05/06/14 10:28, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:I don't think this is an argument against the policy itself, but it is a concern that RIPE NCC needs to address when guiding LIRs in the transfer process.
> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-05
I like this proposed policy, it is very reasonable, and seems to have addressed the overlying concerns with inter-RIR transfers.
I have a comment regarding the second argument against the policy, "The proposal will re-introduce operational needs justification, if any RIR insists on this, in order to effect certain transfers."
In other words: yes, operational needs justification under any other RIR's "jurisdiction" is a concern, but it is not within RIPE's powers to do anything about it, other than help RIPE's LIRs make the best of it when transferring resources.
--
Jan
--
<logo.png> Elvis Daniel Velea
Chief Business Analyst
Email: elvis@V4Escrow.net
US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914
EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914
Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in:
<1.png> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.