* Nick Hilliard
first of all, a large thank-you for handling this policy aggregation. This will make things a lot easier for organisations to understand how RIPE transfer policy works. Although policy reworking like this is completely thankless, it's important to do.
Hear hear.
all policies: removed statement about publishing stats on non-approved transfers. Whoa, what's going on here? Not ok.
I might be to blame for this one. Let me elaborate: 2012-05, which introduced this requirement, said the following: «Recording when address transfers were denied on the basis of needs evaluation (without identifying the block or the proposed recipient) is also important, because it facilitates greater awareness of the impact of RIPE NCC’s application of needs assessment policies on the transfer market.» However, needs assessment for IPv4 transfers (which was the only type allowed at the time) was removed by 2013-03. Thus I considered the requirement to be defunct policy as the NCC no longer would have any reason to not approve of transfers, but I didn't get around to remove it as part of 2013-03. That has irked me since, so I suggested to Erik that maybe he could clean it away in his transfer unification proposal instead. That said, I now realise that since 2014-12 and 2014-13 passed there might again be requests for IPv6/ASN transfers that the NCC might not approve of, making 2015-04's removal of the publishing requirement an actual change to effective policy. In light of that I suppose my suggestion might have been a bad one. My apologies, Erik. Tore