Hello, I don't have a very strong opinion about this, but i think i'm on the opposing side to this proposal. I may be wrong, but i guess this community has some rules about returning resources to the RIR when they are not being used anymore. So, if there is a plan to "transfer" those resources to a (specific) 3rd party, it probably means they are not being used, so they should firstly be returned to our RIR... if current rules have any value. The notion/definition that numbering resources are not an asset is present in several RIPE documents, correct? if this proposal is approved, imho some work needs to be done urgently to "ammend/remove" the documentation phrases where that definition is expressed/implied... Regards, Carlos Friaças On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 06:57:16AM +0000, Tero Toikkanen wrote:
Also, we already have a policy for transferring address space within the RIPE-region.
"within", yes.
Why is this proposal trying to create a new policy instead of amending what we already have in place?
Because our current policy doesn't say anything about transfers outside of the RIPE region (plus, our current policy also needs work, but that's a different thread).
Out-of-region transfers are (obviously) different because the rules of the corresponding RIR need to be taken into account.
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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279