Hi,
Thank you for the analyses.
You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-05
I see some issues that aren't consistent in the wording of the policy, especially in terms of Legacy and PI space holders (non-members) and:
Address space may only be re-allocated to another resource holder who is a member of an RIR that allows transfers.
Both PI space holders and Legacy holders are not always members of an RIR. I'm speaking with my RIPE region community member experience here. So it could be that in for instance ARIN or APNIC all resource holders are members of the RIR, but here in the RIPE region that isn't (always) the case.
When Internet number resources are transferred from another RIR, the RIPE
NCC will work with the resource holder to fulfil any requirements of the sending RIR.
Suggested wording: When Internet number resources are transferred from another RIR to the RIPE Region, the RIPE NCC will work with the receiving party and the resource holder and the sending RIR to confirm the qualification requirements in order to complete transfer.
As Tore noted, the PI transfer section 6.4 was added recently, and since the Impact Analysis makes it clear that PI transfers will be permitted, this doesn't justify a version 3.0 of the inter-RIR transfer policy, in my mind. However, your comments are correct, and duly noted.
It is more specific to the intend, however as the RIPE NCC is put in a position to check if the receiving party qualifies following a needs assessment according to the policy of another RIR, the RIPE NCC needs to be in contact with the receiving party, the resource holder and the sending RIR.
On the part of arbitration, the policy as it is described in the Summary of the Proposal is a nightmare I think..
The Summary of the proposal states :
If another RIR has a different policy, the RIPE NCC should create an operational procedure that satisfies the requirements of both RIRs in order to allow transfers to and from its service region
I understand the intend of what it stated, but I don't think that the NCC should be put in a position where Axel would come opposite from the board of ARIN or APNIC and have them sort out the procedure, without a proper arbitration procedure in place outside the RIR's ... What if a transfer isn't going as planned and it does pass the arbitration in the RIPE region ... the sending RIR doesn't agree with the arbitration out-come ... And what is next ? Will the NCC take the other RIR to court ? Or is there an arbitration process for RIR's ?
Personally I think that the policy should state that the party in the RIPE Region should deal with the arbitration in the RIPE region and that the sending or receiving party in the other RIR should convert to the arbitration in their respective RIR. Or agree by agreement which of the 2 RIR's their arbitration will be used (and with that choice to apply their policy) if we keep the policy as it is currently on the table..
If the intent of the policy, as it is currently, is that the RIPE NCC should adhere to the policy of the more strict assignment policy of the other RIR, state in the policy specifically that the other RIR needs to do the need justification checking with the receiving party and approve the transfer prior to submitting the transfer for processing to the RIPE NCC. They have the best knowledge of the policy in that specific RIR and if they don't agree with the justification or qualification of the receiving party, their arbitration can also be used, without getting the RIPE NCC in a squeeze between a rock and a hard place or putting a requirement in place for the RIPE NCC staff that they should get intimately familiar with other RIR their addressing policy.
If the other RIR approves the transfer based on their current policy at that time (as if it is an intra-rir transfer ) it can be submitted to the RIPE NCC for administrative processing, as the RIPE NCC has a more liberal addressing policy towards transfers than any other RIR.
The model proposed in the policy is intended to mimic the existing policy between APNIC and ARIN whereby the arbitration topic is not needed. When two RIR's have like needs assessment, this topic goes away. As noted, however, in the Impact Assessment, ARIN staff does not see the policy to be compatible with theirs. I am surprised that they say that explicit needs justification is not stated, and must be. The policy states that the requirements of the sending RIR will be met. If the requirement of the sending RIR is needs justification, then needs justification will be performed. But as Tore, says, it opens the door, and in my mind, the door is opened for a next step. Interestingly, ARIN34 seemed to be pushing for removal of needs justification on blocks sized /16 and smaller.
I hope that I've made my point on the topic and with that also suggested a way forward.
I really don't like a policy that has too many open ends or topics that we haven't addressed enough and already know up-front that the other RIR's don't agree with.
This is the nature of negotiation in the global community. Sandra
Regards, Erik Bais