-----Original Message----- Let's say I want to transfer an allocation to another LIR, and want the fact that I've been dealing with said LIR to remain a secret until the deal is done. If the deal falls through due to the failure of the recipient LIR to justify their need for the transferred resource, I don't want the fact I was in negotiations to transfer away 192.0.2.0/24 to become public knowledge.
OK, this is a valid concern, imho. I would propose to modify the language such that statistical aggregates are published rather than individual blocks.
Also, if the goal of the identification is to combat discrimination in need assessment, isn't it the *receiving* LIR that should be identified?
Correct. Would you object if they were? Would others?
I have no objection to having the NCC publish aggregate information about how many transfer tickets they've handled and how many of them was approved. That said, I'm not so sure we would need to have a policy for it, it might be simpler to just ask them to publish the information in aggregate form. For example, they do something along those lines at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/tools-for- lirs/reponse-time-ipv4 without there being any policy compelling them to.
Whatever is easier.
So yes indeed, <RIPE[sic] could easily make this accessible to all with a few keystrokes>. They have stated a willingness to do so, too. So why do we need to change policy, exactly? The PDP is a slow process. It seems to me that it is faster to just ask the NCC to start publishing the desired information. If they refuse to do so, then let's look into compelling them through policy.
Valid points! But on the other hand if we ask them to do it and they don't, then the process becomes even slower, doesn't it? I would prefer to go ahead with the policy change, but as you suggest remove the stuff about failed needs assessments, turn that into a request from RIPE for aggregate statistics. Are we in agreement on that? If so, I will propose a specific modification of the proposal