Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 06:55:03PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: "explicitly" implies that this has been, uh, explicitly written down somewhere. Could you provide a reference? I was sure I'd read an explicit declaration that transfers due to business transactions do not fall under transfer policies in one of the alloc/assignment policy docs, however I might have been wrong and was thinking of ripe-654 which is a Organisational Document. This document, in sec 2.0 recognises transfers thus: A member must inform the RIPE NCC ifone or bothof the following changes occurs: Internet Number Resource are transferred. Such transfers may take place: Because of a change in the members business structure, for example in the case of a merger or acquisition of the members organisation. In the case of a transfer of Internet number resources from the member to another party according to RIPE Policies (section 5.5 and 6.4 of IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region , section 8 of IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy and section 4.0 of Autonomous System (AS) Number Assignment Policies ). Such a transfer may also be facilitated through the RIPE NCC Listing Service . The member changes its official legal name . Such a change may occur, for example, because of a merger or acquisition of the members organisation. So there are transfers due to M, name changes, and *according to transfer policy*. Three separate cases. Which also means that 2015-04, stating explicitly that M transfers are subject to policy, contradicts ripe-654 and would trigger a change of this document - which I hope would be subject to membership approval via GM vote. rgds, Sascha Luck
Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04
Hi, On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:53:10PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > RIPE policy has, until recently, explicitly recognised that M (and "explicitly" implies that this has been, uh, explicitly written down somewhere. Could you provide a reference? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04
Hi Sasha, > RIPE policy has, until recently, explicitly recognised that M (and > what happens to resources due to those) is not in scope for the > PDP. It is only since "last /8" that certain elements of the > "community" have tried, by hook or by crook, to arrogate > themselves the right to decide what happens to resources in the > event of M It has always been in scope, it just hasn't been very interesting to write policy about. Until now when people are using it as a way to circumvent policy. Cheers, Sander signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:44:05PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: RIPE policy does regulate IP allocations and under what conditions you are allowed to have/transfer/etc them. I agree that RIPE policy cannot regulate an organisation's M itself, but what happens to IP allocations when M happens definitely is in scope. RIPE policy has, until recently, explicitly recognised that M (and what happens to resources due to those) is not in scope for the PDP. It is only since "last /8" that certain elements of the "community" have tried, by hook or by crook, to arrogate themselves the right to decide what happens to resources in the event of M rgds, Sascha Luck Not expressing any opinion in favour or against, just clarifying scope :) Cheers, Sander
Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04
Hi Sasha, > The fact remains that policy has no business regulating into the > business transactions of members (vulgo M) and I oppose it for > that reason alone. RIPE policy does regulate IP allocations and under what conditions you are allowed to have/transfer/etc them. I agree that RIPE policy cannot regulate an organisation's M itself, but what happens to IP allocations when M happens definitely is in scope. Not expressing any opinion in favour or against, just clarifying scope :) Cheers, Sander signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 12:45:31AM +0200, Erik Bais wrote: As stated during the discussion at the AP, a change to the holdership will to fall under the same restrictions as the transfers currently, that was pointed out AND discussed since version 1. The fact remains that policy has no business regulating into the business transactions of members (vulgo M) and I oppose it for that reason alone. rgds, Sascha Luck
