* Milton L Mueller
-----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.
Thanks - that would resolve my objection to the proposal.
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 would. I feel that neither the source nor the recipient of a failed transfer should be named. This extends to the address block itself (from which it would have been trivial to figure out the source.) In summary, my position is that: * Source/dest/prefix for successful transfers should definitively be made public. * Aggregate statistical data both for failed and successful transfers is «nice to have». * Information that identifies the specific parties or resources associated with a failed transaction should *not* be made public.
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
Agreed. I would not object to such a proposal. That said, I won't guarantee that I will come out and explicitly support it either (at least not until I've seen you simply ask the NCC to publish the desired data and been refused), but I promise I won't stand in your way. (I think services-wg would be the right place to ask the NCC for the data, by the way.) Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/