Hi Ciprian, 

The goal of the policy have been discussed on the list and in the RIPE meetings … so trying to de-rail the process this late in the game, while you were present at the other meetings by saying that it isn’t clear … it’s valid anymore..

Because as you may remember that was already addressed when it was brought up by Elvis 2 RIPE meetings ago .. and it was addressed at that point.

Regards,

Erik Bais

Van: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Ciprian Nica
Verzonden: woensdag 19 oktober 2016 19:10
Aan: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Regarding this policy I think it clearly states in the beginning: "The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources." 

I congratulate Erik for it and I think it is very useful to have a single document that would address all situations. But we have to make it clear. Is 2015-04's purpose just to better organise information or to change policies ? 

If you would have just done what the goal express I think it would have been the first policy that would not get only consensus but unanimity.

But when you slip in some changes, then it's a different thing. I agree that many things are not very clear and that there are things that can be improved. This however should be debated properly and maybe it should be done one step at a time through other policy proposals.

To resume, if you would change the policy text to stick to it's goal you'd have my +100 (as I see it's getting more popular these days than the classical +1) :)

But since this text brings changes I can only give a -1 for not sticking to the goal and for bringing changes that should be treated more careful, not just let's do it quickly however we can and we'll figure out on the way. Why not make good, permanent changes which are expected by many of the community.

Ciprian

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk> wrote:

The policy states how the statistics are presented, therefore I think this issue should be addressed by the policy.

RIPE NCC implements the policies and if we, the RIPE community, want some things to be implemented in a certain way then the only way to "ask" it is through the policy, otherwise our voices have no value.

Regarding the lack of details at point B., that is in my opinion an insult to the community, regardless of what the policy is about. We should not accept generic statements like that. If nobody bothered to really make an impact analysis then just say it.

Ciprian

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:

Hi,

While I do agree with most of the concerns you present there, I'm
wondering if this is not an issue to be discussed in some other working
group (??? services ??? database ???). They don't seem to be related to
the policy itself, but to the way RIPE NCC implements it and reflects
the changes in the database.

Marco ? Chairs ? anybody else ?

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 11:57, Ciprian Nica wrote:

> > Hi,
> >
> > I think it would be useful to list on the statistics also the broker that
> > facilitated the transfer. That might be of interest to the community and I
> > think the NCC should revise the transfer agreement template in order to be
> > able to mention the broker and also to publish it's name on the transfer
> > statistics page. Also the broker should be allowed to communicate with RIPE
> > and pass information on behalf of the customers during the transfer process.
> >
> > There is also a cosmetic thing that I don't know if it needs be mentioned
> > in policy in order to be implemented. The netname of the allocation keeps
> > the original allocation date in it's name which can be confusing although
> > there's the new "created" attribute.
> >
> > For example, the subnet 128.0.52.0/24 was transferred on 14/10/2016 and
> > it was part of an allocation with netname EU-JM-20120914. The new
> > allocation has netname ES-SISTEC-20120914.
> >
> > If the date is no longer relevant in a netname then I think it should be
> > simply ES-SISTEC, otherwise it can be ES-SISTEC-20161014
> >
> > Ciprian
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mschmidt@ripe.net');>> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear colleagues,
> >>
> >> 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)
> >>
> >> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
> >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04
> >>
> >> And the draft documents at:
> >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04/draft
> >>
> >> We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to <
> >> address-policy-wg@ripe.net
> >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','address-policy-wg@ripe.net');>> before 26
> >> October 2016.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Marco Schmidt
> >> Policy Development Officer
> >> RIPE NCC
> >>
> >> Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum
> >>
> >>
> >