Hi Denis, As the writer of the last transfer policy document, I can put some light in this for you .. ( I hope.. )
The reason for wording like 'a legitmate resource holder' is to include all kind of number resources that holders might have. Being it .. legacy, PI assignments or PA Allocations. Or .. a holder of an AS number. On your statement you cannot transfer a resource unless it is allocated.. would exclude PI assignments .. or Legacy space .. which can also be transferred. There are some documents on the RIPE NCC website that are not policies, but operational procedures, as you already found out .. or how I would state, explanations by interpretation of the RIPE NCC. Like : https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/transfer-of-ip-addresses-and-as-numbers/transfers-in-the-ripe-ncc-service-region The way consolidations of resources between LIR's within a member org work, is written and executed by a procedure of the RIPE NCC, not by definition of the transfer policy. That comes originally from the M&A operational procedure that wasn't written down on the public website, but was possible under/by the Dutch legal framework. And when this became pubic knowledge later, explained on the NCC website and even later, adjusted after executive board direction to keep LIR's open for 24 months. ( Yes it was possible in the beginning of the so-called 'final /8 policy' to open a new LIR, request a /22 and merge it back into the initial lir and close the LIR directly.. ) That was seen as a loop-hole .. against the intent of the transfer restriction of the policy and that was the reasoning this was introduced by EB decision. Currently there some operational differences on how 'consolidation' or m&a's are processed within the RIPE NCC and how that expected when the paperwork that is requested by the RIPE NCC and one might expect. If you do a M&A or consolidation, it was (originally) the case that it was required to also sign a Transfer Agreement ( https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/transfer-of-ip-addresses-and-as-numbers/transfer-agreement-template ) The reasoning behind this practise (as I've been informed by legal from the RIPE NCC ) is to indemnify the RIPE NCC for legal actions .. which in a fact is a bit weird, because the NCC is not a party in the Transfer agreement, but only the executor of an agreement between 2 parties. But in this case the RIPE NCC benefits of legal exclusion on their operation.. But that is a complete different can of worms to discuss. And it actually puts the RIPE NCC in the path of legal action, instead of excluding it as a party. Currently if you do a transfer resources between LIR's of the same member organisation, you are only requested to upload a chamber of commerce document via the website and no other forms are needed anymore. With a M&A, there are notary documents required ... which typically specifies that the number resources are also changing from organisation A to org. B. Those are explained in detail on the RIPE NCC website : https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/required-documents-for-registry-updates And you can see that also the transfer agreement is requested .. even if this is officially NOT a transfer .. but somehow it has been impossible for the RIPE NCC to create a specific template for M&A's ... The only reason for this that I can think of is .. the same legal indemnification that I mentioned earlier .. making the RIPE NCC also here a third party beneficiary to an agreement that it doesn't sign itself. ( looks weird to me .. ) So if you Merge a shell company with 20 LIR's to a company .. with let's say .. 3 LIR's .. you need to select the target LIR .. However .. as the LIR holdership is restricted via the 24 month transfer restriction due to the earlier decision by the board, this isn't executed .. and all LIR's will end up in the target company if the resource wasn't allocated longer than 24 months ago. ( Again .. that isn't how the policy was designed or written .. as M&A's should be possible by transfer policy. ( https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04/?version=4#transferrestrictions ) During the work that we do as an IP broker, we have seen the procedures (and LIR portal interface) change over the passing years .. since the policies were created and implemented. Did we object with the RIPE NCC IPRA (hostmaster) if we found issues like I stated above .. and could argue, but couldn't get the actual topic fixed .. yes .. but in the end the customers need to be serviced .. and they can't wait for their transfer to be on hold, because someone is requesting additional paperwork to be signed. Even if I personally don't agree with it in some cases. One of the weird topics that I see happening with some (Legacy) transfers is that new holders are asked to convert their Legacy space (not owned by the NCC) to be changed to RIPE PA space .. Which basically removes the legacy holder rights of the new holder. And importing their legacy into a RIPE LIR .. and if they would stop paying to the RIPE NCC, they would have the risk of losing their IP space (as it is RIPE PA space now, liked to the membership status ) .. instead of having IP space in their organisations name, regardless if they are a RIPE NCC member or not.. Also this isn't described in the Legacy services policy ( https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-639 ) .. and I have no idea why this is being asked on each Legacy transfer to the receiving party ... And I haven't even touched upon inter-rir transfers .. or Legacy transfers itself .. And with this long read .. I come to a close of the statement by itself .. I don't think that the transfer policy by itself is incorrect .. ( but I could be biased ..) ... That the RIPE NCC operates the transfers slightly to its own interpretation I can understand .. and even with the above mentioned topics, I think they do this very good... There is always room for improvement .. and we pick our battles. I'll be more than happy to provide you some insight on transfers from various type of resources and how the LIR portal options work with it. If you don't have access to an LIR, to see how that looks these days. This can be via Zoom / Teams, or if you fancy to come over to our office near Amsterdam for a cup of coffee. Regards, Erik Bais On 22/12/2021, 16:01, "address-policy-wg on behalf of denis walker" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: Colleagues The Transfer Policy ripe-682 is so vague you can drive a train through the holes in it. I have some questions that I hope someone can answer before Christmas as I would like to propose an amendment to this policy in the new year. "Any legitimate resource holder is allowed to transfer" What does 'legitimate' mean in this context? It is not defined in this policy document. It is no use referring to a dictionary or even some other policy document. It needs to be defined in this policy. If it has no specific meaning in the context of this policy, then the word should be removed. My understanding of a 'policy document' is that it is self contained and consistent. None of the terms: -RIPE NCC Member -LIR -Resource holder are defined anywhere in the Transfer Policy or ripe-733, IPv4 Allocation... A policy may be dependent on another policy being in place. You cannot transfer a resource unless it has been allocated. You cannot allocate a resource unless there is a RIPE NCC Member and an LIR. But you should not have to backtrack through a whole sequence of documents to find out what a term in this policy means. This policy can only work if people understand 'commonly accepted' definitions of these terms. But that is open to interpretation and mis-understanding. That could make legal enforcement of, for example, restrictions more difficult to apply. [As a side issue I have just quickly read through a whole series of documents and forms on becoming a RIPE NCC Member and getting resources. In every document/form I found: -Legal errors -English grammar errors -Procedural errors -Webpage errors The whole process is a complete mess and needs a serious Legal/Comms review.] I found the definition of a Member in one document but nowhere have I found any definition of LIR. These terms are so fundamental to all these policies, to not define them leaves a massive hole in their meaning and authority. These terms seem to be so interchangeable from one paragraph to the next. In some places the wrong term is used. ripe-733 says allocations are made to LIRs ripe-682 says allocations are transferred to members ripe-682 says transfer restrictions apply to resource holders Then we have this document https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/transfer-of-ip-addresses-and-as-numbers which talks about 'hodership', another term not defined. Then we have this document https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/transfer-of-ip-addresses-and-as-numbers/transfers-in-the-ripe-ncc-service-region that conflicts with the Transfer Policy. It also refers to Members as organisations, again without any actual definition. The above document says: "Exception: For transfers between multiple LIR accounts belonging to the same organisation, also referred to as consolidations, the 24 months restriction will only apply once after the resources were received from the RIPE NCC or from another organisation." This is NOT what the Transfer Policy says. The policy makes no mention anywhere of consolidation. The only definition we have of a transfer in any POLICY is this one line: "Allocated resources may only be transferred to another RIPE NCC member." This does not even make sense. A Member cannot 'hold' a resource. Resources are held by Member LIRs. So if a resource is transferred to a Member with 5 LIRs, which one receives it? Does it matter? Is it whichever LIR the Member writes on the transfer request form? Now a consolidation is not a transfer. In the policy a transfer is defined as moving a resource to 'another Member'. So consolidating a resource by moving it from one LIR to another LIR of the same Member is by policy definition, not a transfer. So consolidation is not subject to Transfer Restrictions because it is not a transfer. So all the shell companies that have been set up this year to hoover up the last /24s can now be merged with their parent company and then all the /24s can be consolidated into one LIR. The other LIRs can then be closed. Nothing in this policy document says a /24 allocation must remain for 24 months with the LIR that it was allocated to. It says it cannot be transferred, but mergers are allowed and consolidation is not a transfer. This is even confirmed in a procedural document ripe-758, Transfer of Internet Number Resources... (which doesn't appear to be policy) "Internet number resources that are subject to transfer restrictions imposed by the RIPE Policy "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies", and that are transferred due to a change in a member's business structure, must either remain registered with the original LIR account or be registered with a new LIR account." So merging a shell company with 20 LIRs, each with a /24, with the parent company with a single LIR, allows those 20 /24s to be registered with the single LIR of the parent company and closure of the 20 LIRs. Also ripe-758 introduces yet another term, parties, without any definition or clarity. This whole transfer process is totally confused with contradictory, inconsistent and poorly written documents and policies. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
