Further discussion on 2024-01
Moin, thank you all for your feedback on 2024-01. With the discussion slot coming up at RIPE-89, I wanted to share some considerations on how the various suggestions from the ML could be addressed ahead of time, so we can go for a more active on-site discussion. I put the changes into git again: https://git.as59645.net/tfiebig/ripe-738-pi-update/src/branch/draft-09/draft... Specifically, I saw the following core-points: - Concerns about the interaction with the charging scheme I clarified again, that charging scheme discussions are out of scope, also illustrating the voiced concerns and that--ultimately--the same effect is already present with the current version of the policy. - Concerns regarding various terms and handling of PA vs. PI The purpose for changes to 2.9 and 5.4 have been explained in more detail in the associated considerations. Furthermore, some clarifications have been integrated into the text. I also made clear that the purpose is the defragmentation of the registry. - Concerns voiced regarding evaluation of renumbering requests The policy now clearly discusses how and under which conditions renumbering is necessary, and when which prefixes need to be handed back, including methods to reduce the impact on End Users that may face, e.g., renumbering, i.e., allowing the withdrawel of a request if it would otherwise cause renumbering. I am looking forward to further discussions on the list, as well as to a lively discussion at the upcoming meeting. With best regards, Tobias
Overall I think this addresses many of the concerns raised during previous discussions. I have a slight issue with the following line:
Similarly, receiving a transfer of a PI assignment also leads to a reevaluation of addressing needs.
This would imply that after a change of corporate structure the NCC may revoke PI. I support this being the case when selling PI to an unrelated entity, but I think mergers and acquisitions should be excluded - or at least given a grace period given how busy companies are when merging with another. Q ------------------------------ Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and are not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically stated. AS207960 Cyfyngedig, having a registered office at 13 Pen-y-lan Terrace, Caerdydd, Cymru, CF23 9EU, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered in Wales under № 12417574 <https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12417574>, LEI 875500FXNCJPAPF3PD10. ICO register №: ZA782876 <https://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Entry/ZA782876>. UK VAT №: GB378323867. EU VAT №: EU372013983. Turkish VAT №: 0861333524. South Korean VAT №: 522-80-03080. AS207960 Ewrop OÜ, having a registered office at Lääne-Viru maakond, Tapa vald, Porkuni küla, Lossi tn 1, 46001, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered in Estonia under № 16755226. Estonian VAT №: EE102625532. Glauca Digital and the Glauca logo are registered trademarks in the UK, under № UK00003718474 and № UK00003718468, respectively. On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 at 16:39, Tobias Fiebig via address-policy-wg < address-policy-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
Moin,
thank you all for your feedback on 2024-01. With the discussion slot coming up at RIPE-89, I wanted to share some considerations on how the various suggestions from the ML could be addressed ahead of time, so we can go for a more active on-site discussion.
I put the changes into git again:
https://e.as207960.net/w4bdyj/aPKtyjBeoDAjpjw3
Specifically, I saw the following core-points:
- Concerns about the interaction with the charging scheme
I clarified again, that charging scheme discussions are out of scope, also illustrating the voiced concerns and that--ultimately--the same effect is already present with the current version of the policy.
- Concerns regarding various terms and handling of PA vs. PI
The purpose for changes to 2.9 and 5.4 have been explained in more detail in the associated considerations. Furthermore, some clarifications have been integrated into the text.
I also made clear that the purpose is the defragmentation of the registry.
- Concerns voiced regarding evaluation of renumbering requests
The policy now clearly discusses how and under which conditions renumbering is necessary, and when which prefixes need to be handed back, including methods to reduce the impact on End Users that may face, e.g., renumbering, i.e., allowing the withdrawel of a request if it would otherwise cause renumbering.
I am looking forward to further discussions on the list, as well as to a lively discussion at the upcoming meeting.
With best regards, Tobias ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://e.as207960.net/w4bdyj/ncY4BJPUrOAQrcG9 As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://e.as207960.net/w4bdyj/bFXndo2ArupsVSBC
Moin, On Sat, 2024-10-12 at 13:37 +0200, Q Misell wrote:
Overall I think this addresses many of the concerns raised during previous discussions.
I have a slight issue with the following line:
Similarly, receiving a transfer of a PI assignment also leads to a reevaluation of addressing needs.
This would imply that after a change of corporate structure the NCC may revoke PI. I support this being the case when selling PI to an unrelated entity, but I think mergers and acquisitions should be excluded - or at least given a grace period given how busy companies are when merging with another.
So, simply reformulating this to: "Similarly, receiving a transfer of a PI assignment also leads to a reevaluation of addressing needs, except for transfers for the purpose of mergers and acquisitions." Would alleviate the concern here? With best regards, Tobias
Yes 👍 ------------------------------ Any statements contained in this email are personal to the author and are not necessarily the statements of the company unless specifically stated. AS207960 Cyfyngedig, having a registered office at 13 Pen-y-lan Terrace, Caerdydd, Cymru, CF23 9EU, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered in Wales under № 12417574 <https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12417574>, LEI 875500FXNCJPAPF3PD10. ICO register №: ZA782876 <https://ico.org.uk/ESDWebPages/Entry/ZA782876>. UK VAT №: GB378323867. EU VAT №: EU372013983. Turkish VAT №: 0861333524. South Korean VAT №: 522-80-03080. AS207960 Ewrop OÜ, having a registered office at Lääne-Viru maakond, Tapa vald, Porkuni küla, Lossi tn 1, 46001, trading as Glauca Digital, is a company registered in Estonia under № 16755226. Estonian VAT №: EE102625532. Glauca Digital and the Glauca logo are registered trademarks in the UK, under № UK00003718474 and № UK00003718468, respectively. On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 at 13:41, Tobias Fiebig <tobias@fiebig.nl> wrote:
Moin,
On Sat, 2024-10-12 at 13:37 +0200, Q Misell wrote:
Overall I think this addresses many of the concerns raised during previous discussions.
I have a slight issue with the following line:
Similarly, receiving a transfer of a PI assignment also leads to a reevaluation of addressing needs.
This would imply that after a change of corporate structure the NCC may revoke PI. I support this being the case when selling PI to an unrelated entity, but I think mergers and acquisitions should be excluded - or at least given a grace period given how busy companies are when merging with another.
So, simply reformulating this to:
"Similarly, receiving a transfer of a PI assignment also leads to a reevaluation of addressing needs, except for transfers for the purpose of mergers and acquisitions."
Would alleviate the concern here?
With best regards, Tobias
participants (2)
-
Q Misell -
Tobias Fiebig