I believe some comments were previously expressed:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2012-August/007031.html

I support those comments. I also agree with the portion of RIPE's impact analysis
which proposes to anonymize refused transfer data. The point of having that particular data is to see how much is being refused, rather than to know specifically who was refused.

Regards,

---------------------------------------
Brenden Kuerbis
Postdoctoral Fellow, Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto || http://citizenlab.org
Postdoctoral Researcher, iSchool, Syracuse University || http://internetgovernance.org




On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Dear Address Policy WG,

There has been no feedback on policy proposal 2012-05 since it entered the review phase:

> The draft document for the proposal described in 2012-05,
> "Transparency in Address Block Transfers", has been published. The
> Impact Analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been
> published.
>
> You can find the full proposal at:
>
>    https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05
>
> and the draft document at:
>
>    https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-05/draft
>
> We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments
> to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 31 August 2012.

We have almost reached the end of the review phase. Without feedback from the WG this policy proposal cannot proceed. Please let us know what you think of this policy proposal, or if you think more time is needed to discuss it.

Thank you,
Sander Steffann
APWG Co-chair