Back in December, I suggested that the wording be changed from «LIRs» to something more generic. The rationale was that if the policy explicitly refers to LIRs only, this will prevent inter-region transfers of PI address space held by non-LIRs, even if the IPv4 policy is amended to allow for in-region transfers of PI addresses. The proposer responded: «I am quite willing to change the wording from LIR's to Organizations if all agree». I saw no objections, but version 2.0 still refers to LIRs specifically. So I'd still like to see this changed. That said... I support the idea of allowing inter-region transfers in general as long as the marginal cost of doing so is reasonably low, so I feel a bit bad about this, but: I do *not* support this proposal. The reason for this is that inter-region transfers are being used as an argument against proposal 2013-03, see: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-March/007757.h... My view is that if the cost of allowing for inter-region transfers (specifically in a way that is compatible with ARIN's policy) is to uphold the need bureaucracy and operational overhead relating to assignments for all RIPE region LIRs, then the marginal cost is not reasonably low, but unacceptably high. If it's an either/or situation between 2012-02 and 2013-03, I'm firmly in the 2013-03 camp. I elaborate on why here: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-March/007764.h... This issue might be resolved by having 2012-02 add some text that upholds the need principle for transfers coming in from regions that demand it (read: ARIN), or for the recipient LIRs of such transfers overall. I have no suggestion on exactly how this text could look like, I'm afraid. I suspect the proposer would have to discuss it with ARIN staff in order to get confirmation that any proposed text does indeed satisfy their definition of «needs-based general number resource policies». Tore