Hi, On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 04:23:53PM +0200, James Kennedy wrote:
I do not see why this would be violating policy if the outgoing resource holder states "I do not want to transfer anything", in a format that is appropriate for the circumstances - notably, "whatever happens to me in the next months, do not believe anything else I might be forced to say".
What should the RIPE NCC do if that member later submits a policy-compliant transfer request, during their previously requested "transfer lockdown" period? Does the "transfer lock" mechanism override the Transfer Policy?
What is unclear about a clear statement of will that says "ignore everything I am going to say about this for the next 6 months"? There is no leeway for interpretation or doubt here.
Seems needlessly messy to me and far too open to interpretation. I support the idea of clearly documenting a Transfer Lockdown mechanism in the Transfer Policy.
"Any legitimate resource holder is allowed to transfer complete or partial blocks of address space or number resources (IPv4, IPv6 and AS Numbers) that were previously allocated or assigned to them by the RIPE NCC or otherwise through the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) system." https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-682#2-0-transfers-within-the-rip...
Yes, *allowed*, so the NCC can not deny a resource holder the right *if he wants so*. But if he clearly states "I do not want to excercise this right for the next 6 months" this is a matter of consenting adults, and contractual matters. Amend the SSAC if needed to cover this case (this I'd actually find somewhat logical). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279