Dear AP WG, On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 02:46:03PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote:
The draft document for the version 2.0 of the proposal 2012-02, "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space", has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. [..] You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02 [..] We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 18 March 2013.
Some comments have been received, but the voice of the community is less than clear to me. I have 3 voices of opposition, 4 voices of support, and a number of voices that are asking for clarification. This is far from consensus, and it's a bit unlucky that the real discussion is starting so late in the process - but anyway, now you're talking and I'm happy to see this. To try to reach a more clear picture, the WG chairs have decided to extend the review period for this proposal by 4 weeks as well. Emilio will do the formal announcement soon. I want to ask the proposer (Sandra Brown) to use that time to sort out the remaining issues regarding language - if needed, we can always do a v3.0 of the proposal, possibly changing it completely - and work with those that oppose the proposal to see whether middle ground can be found. In addition to that, some behind-the-scenes talk suggested to me that there was "lots of interest" in this proposal - so show it to me, by speaking up. Appended below is a list of people voicing an opinion in the review phase, and my interpretation of their support/non-support for the proposal. If you disagree with our interpretation of what has been said, and the conclusion we have drawn from it, please let us know. Gert Doering -- APWG chair ------------------------------------------- 2012-02 2.0 review phase (2013-03-04 - 2013-03-18) Sandra Brown: explanation of the reason for a v2.0 McTim: opposition based on impact analysis and NCC workload Tore Anderson: worried about amount of work created, neutral Sascha Luck: opposition based on admin overhead creating fee increase Mike Burns: support Nigel Titley: worried about language not precise enough answered by Sandra Brown Andreas Larsen: support, but worried about cost/overhead at RIPE NCC Boggits: question about existing transfer policy clauses ("must be empty") (short side-track to clarify) Richard Hartmann: neutral, but "proposal is not ready, needs more discussion, it's not actually clear waht this is all about" (short side-track, WG chair pointing to relevant bits of proposal) -> still "neutral" to "weak support" Mike Simkins: "more clarification needed", tend to opposition Andre de la Haye / RIPE NCC: clarification about implementation costs -> Tore Anderson "return to neutral wrt proposal" Phil Rushton: support -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279