On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand@gmail.com> wrote:
Overall, this policy looks good to me. However, I believe there is one problem with the text. The language regarding recipients in other regions requires that the recipient be an LIR. However, the transfer policies of the other regions do not make any such distinction. Therefore, I believe it would be more appropriate to use the word organization instead of LIR when referring to recipients in other regions.

That's a fair point.

-When Internet number resources are transferred to another RIR, the RIPE NCC will work with the destination RIR to allow the transfer to the receiving LIR.
+When Internet number resources are transferred to another RIR, the RIPE NCC will work with the destination RIR to allow the transfer to the receiving organization.

Like that?

Yes.  Also:

-Address space may only be re-allocated to another LIR that is a member of an RIR that allows transfers. The block that is to be re-allocated must not be smaller than the minimum allocation block size at the time of re-allocation.
+Address space may only be re-allocated to another organization that is a member of an RIR that allows transfers. The block that is to be re-allocated must not be smaller than the minimum allocation block size at the time of re-allocation.

However, that may have implications for intra-RIR transfers, so you might need to separate out the two cases if you don't want to imply that non-LIR organizations can receive transfers in the RIPE region.  Maybe something like "to another LIR in the RIPE region, or an organization that is a member of an RIR that allows transfers."

-Scott