2023-03 New Policy Proposal (Voluntary Transfer Lock)
Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal, 2023-03, “Voluntary Transfer Lock” is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to allow resource holders whose resources are registered with the RIPE NCC to inform them which of these resources must not be transferred for a certain amount of time. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-03 As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposers. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposers, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. The PDP document can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to ncc-services-wg@ripe.net before 6 April 2023. Kind regards, Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC
Hello all, Just a reminder that tomorrow marks the half-way point in the discussion phase for this proposal. If you have views on this policy proposal, please express them on-list. Cheers, Rob On 8 Mar 2023, at 8:31, Angela Dall'Ara wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy Proposal, 2023-03, “Voluntary Transfer Lock” is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to allow resource holders whose resources are registered with the RIPE NCC to inform them which of these resources must not be transferred for a certain amount of time.
You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-03
As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposers.
At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposers, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal.
The PDP document can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to ncc-services-wg@ripe.net before 6 April 2023.
Kind regards, Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ncc-services-wg
Hi list,
Just a reminder that tomorrow marks the half-way point in the discussion phase for this proposal. If you have views on this policy proposal, please express them on-list.
Just to make it clear: we need to see if people like this proposal. Please express your support, or at least your interest. If there is only silence this proposal will NOT be able to proceed. Cheers, Sander
Hi, On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 10:19:07AM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
Just a reminder that tomorrow marks the half-way point in the discussion phase for this proposal. If you have views on this policy proposal, please express them on-list.
Just to make it clear: we need to see if people like this proposal. Please express your support, or at least your interest. If there is only silence this proposal will NOT be able to proceed.
I do support the proposed idea. What I do not like is that this is presented as a PDP proposal, because in my book, this is "paying member issues / procedure", not "policy". That means: I think we do not need the PDP here, but the NCC should have gone and implemented it many moons ago already - there was sufficient interest expressed in the previous discussions. Also, I think the PDP is the wrong vehicle, because support for this should *not* require consensus. If "half the LIRs from country A" think this is a very good thing for them to have, and "all the LIRs from contry B and C" speak up against it, we clearly have no consensus - but should *still* go forward with it, due to the nature of the underlying problem, and the territories involved. 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
Hi, I think you have a strong point there Gert. But i'm also interested in this, as a way to receive less trash about selling/buying/transferring IPv4 address space....... :-) So i would also say "support". Cheers, Carlos On Wed, 26 Apr 2023, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 10:19:07AM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
Just a reminder that tomorrow marks the half-way point in the discussion phase for this proposal. If you have views on this policy proposal, please express them on-list.
Just to make it clear: we need to see if people like this proposal. Please express your support, or at least your interest. If there is only silence this proposal will NOT be able to proceed.
I do support the proposed idea.
What I do not like is that this is presented as a PDP proposal, because in my book, this is "paying member issues / procedure", not "policy".
That means: I think we do not need the PDP here, but the NCC should have gone and implemented it many moons ago already - there was sufficient interest expressed in the previous discussions.
Also, I think the PDP is the wrong vehicle, because support for this should *not* require consensus. If "half the LIRs from country A" think this is a very good thing for them to have, and "all the LIRs from contry B and C" speak up against it, we clearly have no consensus - but should *still* go forward with it, due to the nature of the underlying problem, and the territories involved.
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
I support the process, however I also think this should be implemented as an operational procedure, not by pdp policy. This is a similar decision of someone who likes to return resources to the NCC. It is their own decision to do, how they see fit. There is a good chance that this might not reach consensus, due to people of the opposing region/countries/reasons etc... and then what ? ... This should have been implemented by decision of the RIPE NCC, after the discussions 9 months ago imho. So support for the idea. Let's move on and get this sorted. Regards, Erik Bais
seems reasonable randy
Hi, On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 at 01:19, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Hi list,
Just a reminder that tomorrow marks the half-way point in the discussion phase for this proposal. If you have views on this policy proposal, please express them on-list.
Just to make it clear: we need to see if people like this proposal. Please express your support, or at least your interest. If there is only silence this proposal will NOT be able to proceed.
I support introducing this service feature. I also wish we did not need to use the PDP here. But it is better to use this process than not have the feature for those LIRs that need it. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 at 17:25, Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Just a reminder that tomorrow marks the half-way point in the discussion phase for this proposal. If you have views on this policy proposal, please express them on-list. Just to make it clear: we need to see if people like this proposal. Please express your support, or at least your interest. If there is only silence this proposal will NOT be able to proceed. I also wish we did not need to use the PDP here. But it is better to use this process than not have the feature for those LIRs that need it.
In support. Chriztoffer
+1 (I support the feature even if I also think that it should probably just have been an administrative action from the NCC) -Cynthia On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 5:25 PM Leo Vegoda <leo@vegoda.org> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 at 01:19, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Hi list,
Just a reminder that tomorrow marks the half-way point in the
discussion phase for this proposal. If you have views on this policy proposal, please express them on-list.
Just to make it clear: we need to see if people like this proposal.
Please express your support, or at least your interest. If there is only silence this proposal will NOT be able to proceed.
I support introducing this service feature.
I also wish we did not need to use the PDP here. But it is better to use this process than not have the feature for those LIRs that need it.
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ncc-services-wg
hi, I support this service feature. +1 from my side. regards, Kurt
On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 at 01:19, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote: > > Hi list, > > > Just a reminder that tomorrow marks the half-way point in the discussion phase for this proposal. If you have views on this policy proposal, please express them on-list. > > Just to make it clear: we need to see if people like this proposal. Please express your support, or at least your interest. If there is only silence this proposal will NOT be able to proceed.
I support introducing this service feature.
I also wish we did not need to use the PDP here. But it is better to use this process than not have the feature for those LIRs that need it.
Kind regards,
Leo Vegoda
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ncc-services-wg
Hi, I also supprt this service feature. +1 regards Stefan Von: ncc-services-wg <ncc-services-wg-bounces@ripe.net> Im Auftrag von Kurt Kayser Gesendet: Donnerstag, 27. April 2023 08:10 An: ncc-services-wg@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [ncc-services-wg] Feedback needed: 2023-03 New Policy Proposal (Voluntary Transfer Lock) hi, I support this service feature. +1 from my side. regards, Kurt On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 at 01:19, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl <mailto:sander@steffann.nl> > wrote:
Hi list,
Just a reminder that tomorrow marks the half-way point in the discussion phase for this proposal. If you have views on this policy proposal, please express them on-list.
Just to make it clear: we need to see if people like this proposal. Please express your support, or at least your interest. If there is only silence this proposal will NOT be able to proceed.
I support introducing this service feature. I also wish we did not need to use the PDP here. But it is better to use this process than not have the feature for those LIRs that need it. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ncc-services-wg
Hi All, This if probably out of the timeline, but i don't really understand arguments opposing the proposal. Proposals don't often solve every possible case. It's also clear to me that the benefit might be there only for some members, but if the cost to implement it is low, then i don't see a drawback. Should the proposers include the results of a poll to the membership? I also don't really understand why legacy resources are intentionally left outside the scope of this proposal. [[...potential new use case here...]] I'm also wondering if this could also prevent "ipv4 market scavengers" from harassing address space holders, that may mark their space as "non transferable"...... :-)) There isn't an impact analysis yet (maybe due to the timeline?), but if this is already in practice due to an executive board decision, i would really like to see it... Best Regards, Carlos On Tue, 21 Mar 2023, Rob Evans wrote:
Hello all,
Just a reminder that tomorrow marks the half-way point in the discussion phase for this proposal. If you have views on this policy proposal, please express them on-list.
Cheers, Rob
On 8 Mar 2023, at 8:31, Angela Dall'Ara wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy Proposal, 2023-03, ?Voluntary Transfer Lock? is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to allow resource holders whose resources are registered with the RIPE NCC to inform them which of these resources must not be transferred for a certain amount of time.
You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-03
As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposers.
At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposers, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal.
The PDP document can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to ncc-services-wg@ripe.net before 6 April 2023.
Kind regards, Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ncc-services-wg
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/ncc-services-wg
Hi,
This if probably out of the timeline, but i don't really understand arguments opposing the proposal.
Indeed, the discussion phase has ended. I sent a message to the proposers this morning asking for a decision on whether they wanted a new discussion phase or to withdraw the proposal. Of course, we won't ignore this discussion happening now. The problem is that there haven't been _any_ arguments about the proposal on the ncc-services list, either in favour of it or against it. Cheers, Rob
participants (12)
-
Angela Dall'Ara -
Carlos Friaças -
Cynthia Revström -
Erik Bais -
Gert Doering -
Kurt Kayser -
Leo Vegoda -
netravnen+ripelist＠gmail.com -
Randy Bush -
Rob Evans -
Sander Steffann -
Stefan Ferstl