* Andy Davidson

...

- Not sure if a list of non-approved ASN transfers is useful, and concerned that it might put people off registering transfers with the NCC.

The non-approved transfer stat is a pre-2013-03 relic, and it has no useful purpose today that I can see. From the rationale in 2012-05: «Recording when address transfers were denied on the basis of needs evaluation (without identifying the block or the proposed recipient) is also important, because it facilitates greater awareness of the impact of RIPE NCC’s application of needs assessment policies on the transfer market.» Since the RIPE NCC won't deny any transfer on the basis of needs evaluation p.t., this is dead policy. 2014-05 might change that, though. I can understand that Erik put it in there though, since the first phase of his plan is to carbon-copy the IPv4 transfer policy, which already has consensus so it's probably the path of least resistance. When he gets to the second phase, to clean up and unify the now redundant and fragmented transfer policies, we could ask him to take it out. * Sascha Luck

I don't understand this recent obsession with publishing lists of all transactions and there is no rationale given in the proposal for this either. I could live with anonymised lists though for both approved and disapproved transfers.

The RIPE NCC has published information about who receives and holds resoures since its inception. I think transfers should be out in the open, as well. There has been some worry of speculation and hoarding post IPv4 depletion, with the transfer list out in the open we can all take a look to check if this seems to be happening, and if so, if the extent of the practise justifies further policy developement. Another issue that was raised by RS at RIPE69 was the practise of registering short-lived LIRs for the purpose of obtaining and transferring /22s. The transfer list gives us further insight into this practise. Also, one could imagine that having this information out in the open would provide some level of deterrant against organisations who whould otherwise do stuff against the spirit of the policy. Note that even if 2012-05 was rescinded, transfers would still be publicly available information. You can just compare yesterdays database export or alloclist.txt with today's, and see what changed. But it's a more cumbersome process though. Tore

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:44:06AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:

resoures since its inception. I think transfers should be out in the open, as well. There has been some worry of speculation and hoarding post IPv4 depletion, with the transfer list out in the open we can all take a look to check if this seems to be happening, and if so, if the extent of the practise justifies further policy developement. Another

I don't see why LIRs must be accountable to the mob rather than the NCC whom I they have a contract with. I can see this leading to endless harassment by people who haven't read or understood the policies, want to damage competitors or are simply trolls. What safeguards, if any, do you propose to prevent this?

Note that even if 2012-05 was rescinded, transfers would still be publicly available information. You can just compare yesterdays database export or alloclist.txt with today's, and see what changed. But it's a more cumbersome process though.

Sure. Let whomever wants this info do the work. rgds, Sascha Luck

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:42:39AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:

...

What safeguards, if any, do you propose to prevent this?

None. I think that having the LIRs be accountable to the community in a transparent fashion is much a better alternative than shrouding everything in secrecy. There might be uninformed people or trolls crying foul based on public information, but with everything out in the open, the more informed amongst us is in a much better position to point out that there is no foul (assuming there is none).

Well then, please publish all your shopping receipts, in order for the community to offer you helpful advice on whether you need all this stuff and what you could use instead. Seriously though, this I cannot agree with. If you throw enough shit, some of it will stick, whether you've done anything wrong or not. So, while I support the goal of the policy, I'll oppose it as long as this requirement is in there.

As an aside, I was puzzled to hear Andrea (iirc) say at the mic that the identity of the Russian organisation that held 100 ASNs was confidential. That information should be right there out in the open in the RIPE database, should it not? How could it possibly be confidential?

I'm sure with some effort this information could be extracted from the ripedb. I agree, though, that the collated information should be confidential and I'm glad to hear that the NCC treats it as such. rgds, Sascha Luck