On 27 Oct 2025, at 16:12, Wade, Clara via address-policy-wg [wrote][]:
Following the suggestion of the RIPE NCC, we are seeking early
feedback on an upcoming policy proposal we currently have in draft
status.
I have some observations to make, which I think will need attention
before or during the passage of the eventual proposal through the PDP.
- Language "proposal to clarify the non-transferability of legacy
status"
in draft seems inappropriate to me. This is an innovation; it should
not be disguised as anything else. Perhaps "clarify the" should read
"introduce declaration of".
- Making this declaration may be at odds with legacy-resource holders'
understanding of the rights included in the original grant of the
resources. If so, I believe that principled, as well as pragmatic
arguments will be needed as a foundation for the proposal.
- As others have pointed out, care will be needed to find an
appropriate balance between the advantage of unburdening the NCC,
and the disadvantage of potentially losing accuracy.
- Decomposing the problem, along the lines Randy suggests, seems to be
worth doing in order to simplify our discussions. He seems to me to
have identified what I call "onboarding" and "transfer" as the main
sub-problems.
Prompted by the durations mentioned upthread corresponding to
different kinds of transfer request, I suggest a slightly more
detailed decomposition.
* Onboarding (know your customer) of either or both of the intending
donor and recipient of the transfer, unless they are already
sufficiently known to the NCC;
* Onboarding (proof of title) of the legacy resource to be
transferred, if this is not already known to the NCC;
* The actual transfer.
It seems to me that the burdensome elements are the first and second
ones mentioned.
I also have some disclosures to make as to my interest in this.
- Almost my entire career was spent in the employment of a legacy
resource holder; I am still on their (pension) payroll.
- I was one of the co-authors of RIPE policy proposal 2012-07,
accepted on 6 Feb 2014, saved as RIPE document RIPE-605,
and subsequently obsoleted by RIPE document RIPE-639.
- For the time being, and until I have refreshed my understanding of
the relevant existing RIPE policy proposals and documents, I reserve
my personal position on this draft and on the eventual policy
proposal.
I hope this helps.
Niall
---
[wrote]:
https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/thread/BUI62XDOBH4DQKPLGTQUZHDEOW6LBIL7/
[2012-07]:
https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/proposals/2012-07/
[RIPE-605]:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-605/
[RIPE-639]:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-639/
-----
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options,
please visit:
https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/
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://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
