2026-03 New Policy Proposal (Clarifying Audit and Policy Compliance Frameworks for IPv6 policies)
Dear colleagues, A new RIPE Policy Proposal, 2026-03 "Clarifying Audit and Policy Compliance Frameworks for IPv6 policies" is now available for discussion. The goal of this proposal is to clarify the existing requirements for the IPv6 post-provisioning lifecycle, while also aligning the text with IPv4 policies. You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/proposals/2026-03/ As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of the Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer. At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal. The PDP document can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781 We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 17 November 2026. Kind regards, Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC
Dear colleagues, First, many thanks to Angela for getting the proposal published. With the draft now available to the working group, I would like to hear your feedback. You will notice that I reused the audit and policy compliance wording directly from the current IPv4 policy. As RIPE NCC staff, taking a conservative approach felt like the most appropriate starting point for a policy proposal. However, there might be better ways to phrase this. If you support the intent of this proposal, I welcome any suggestions for improvements so that, together, we can develop the text further. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC On 19/10/2026 13:38, Angela Dall'Ara wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy Proposal, 2026-03 "Clarifying Audit and Policy Compliance Frameworks for IPv6 policies" is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to clarify the existing requirements for the IPv6 post-provisioning lifecycle, while also aligning the text with IPv4 policies.
You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/proposals/2026-03/
As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of the Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer.
At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal.
The PDP document can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 17 November 2026.
Kind regards,
Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi all, did the RIPE NCC see issues that could not be dealt with appropriately under current policy or is this just housekeeping? I do not see anything inherently wrong with the changes, yet nothing to be excited about. Thanks Max Emig On 19.10.26 14:00, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Dear colleagues,
First, many thanks to Angela for getting the proposal published.
With the draft now available to the working group, I would like to hear your feedback.
You will notice that I reused the audit and policy compliance wording directly from the current IPv4 policy. As RIPE NCC staff, taking a conservative approach felt like the most appropriate starting point for a policy proposal. However, there might be better ways to phrase this. If you support the intent of this proposal, I welcome any suggestions for improvements so that, together, we can develop the text further.
Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC
On 19/10/2026 13:38, Angela Dall'Ara wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy Proposal, 2026-03 "Clarifying Audit and Policy Compliance Frameworks for IPv6 policies" is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to clarify the existing requirements for the IPv6 post-provisioning lifecycle, while also aligning the text with IPv4 policies.
You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/proposals/2026-03/
As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of the Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer.
At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal.
The PDP document can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 17 November 2026.
Kind regards,
Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hello Max, Thank you for your feedback. It's a bit of both. While the current audit procedure and our policy compliance framework already cover IPv6 space, we noticed that some members, for example during audits, had trouble seeing those requirements stated in the IPv6 policy itself. For example, pointing to Section 4.1 caused confusion, as it states that address licenses might not be renewed and mentions non-compliance as acting in 'bad faith'. So yes, this is a kind of extended housekeeping and probably not the most exciting proposal, but I think that adding this clarity and aligning it with the IPv4 policy will improve the overall understanding and reinforce that IPv6 is subject to the same requirements as IPv4. Hence, I curious to hear more feedback. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt RIPE NCC On 19/10/2026 14:03, ripe@emigm.ax wrote:
Hi all,
did the RIPE NCC see issues that could not be dealt with appropriately under current policy or is this just housekeeping?
I do not see anything inherently wrong with the changes, yet nothing to be excited about.
Thanks
Max Emig
On 19.10.26 14:00, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Dear colleagues,
First, many thanks to Angela for getting the proposal published.
With the draft now available to the working group, I would like to hear your feedback.
You will notice that I reused the audit and policy compliance wording directly from the current IPv4 policy. As RIPE NCC staff, taking a conservative approach felt like the most appropriate starting point for a policy proposal. However, there might be better ways to phrase this. If you support the intent of this proposal, I welcome any suggestions for improvements so that, together, we can develop the text further.
Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC
On 19/10/2026 13:38, Angela Dall'Ara wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy Proposal, 2026-03 "Clarifying Audit and Policy Compliance Frameworks for IPv6 policies" is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to clarify the existing requirements for the IPv6 post-provisioning lifecycle, while also aligning the text with IPv4 policies.
You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/proposals/2026-03/
As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of the Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer.
At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal.
The PDP document can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 17 November 2026.
Kind regards,
Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
Hi Marco and Colleagues, I read this proposal with great interest, particularly the deletion of the following foundational language from Section 4.1: *"RIRs will generally renew licenses automatically, provided requesting organisations are making a “good faith” effort at meeting the criteria under which they qualified for or were granted an allocation or assignment. However, in those cases where a requesting organisation is not using the address space as intended, or is showing bad faith in following through on the associated obligation, RIRs reserve the right to not renew the license."* Marco notes in his comment that pointing LIRs to Section 4.1 during audits caused "confusion" because it explicitly mentions non-compliance and acting in "bad faith" as grounds for license non-renewal. Framing the removal of an explicit contractual enforcement clause as mere "housekeeping" or "alignment" is deeply concerning. Alignment is a two-way street. If there is a disparity between IPv4 and IPv6 policy frameworks regarding audit compliance and resource holder accountability, the logical operational response is to bring IPv4 text up to the robust standard of IPv6—not to strip accountability mechanisms out of IPv6 to match an outdated IPv4 baseline. The rationale notes that this text was developed through joint discussions across the APNIC, ARIN, and RIPE communities. Is the collective intent across these RIR regions truly to reduce accountability for resource holders who show bad faith or fail to take action against illicit activities on their networks? By removing this clause, the community is actively deregulating resource holder accountability at the exact moment internet infrastructure abuse and un-remediated criminal operations are at an all-time high. It signals that an LIR can operate in bad faith, ignore its post-provisioning obligations, or systematically facilitate cybercrime under its allocated space without risking its license renewal status. This deletion stands in direct opposition to the principle of LIR contractual accountability currently being debated across the RIPE community (such as Policy Proposal 2026-02 in the Security WG). Do we as a community truly want to reduce the registry's explicit authority to act when a resource holder acts in bad faith? If alignment is the goal, we should be adding bad-faith non-renewal protections to IPv4, not scrubbing them from IPv6. Cheers, *Denis Walker* *Retired RIPE Database Senior Analyst & Engineer* On Tue, 20 Oct 2026 at 13:27, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Hello Max,
Thank you for your feedback.
It's a bit of both. While the current audit procedure and our policy compliance framework already cover IPv6 space, we noticed that some members, for example during audits, had trouble seeing those requirements stated in the IPv6 policy itself. For example, pointing to Section 4.1 caused confusion, as it states that address licenses might not be renewed and mentions non-compliance as acting in 'bad faith'.
So yes, this is a kind of extended housekeeping and probably not the most exciting proposal, but I think that adding this clarity and aligning it with the IPv4 policy will improve the overall understanding and reinforce that IPv6 is subject to the same requirements as IPv4.
Hence, I curious to hear more feedback.
Kind regards, Marco Schmidt RIPE NCC
On 19/10/2026 14:03, ripe@emigm.ax wrote:
Hi all,
did the RIPE NCC see issues that could not be dealt with appropriately under current policy or is this just housekeeping?
I do not see anything inherently wrong with the changes, yet nothing to be excited about.
Thanks
Max Emig
On 19.10.26 14:00, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Dear colleagues,
First, many thanks to Angela for getting the proposal published.
With the draft now available to the working group, I would like to hear your feedback.
You will notice that I reused the audit and policy compliance wording directly from the current IPv4 policy. As RIPE NCC staff, taking a conservative approach felt like the most appropriate starting point for a policy proposal. However, there might be better ways to phrase this. If you support the intent of this proposal, I welcome any suggestions for improvements so that, together, we can develop the text further.
Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Manager Registration Services RIPE NCC
On 19/10/2026 13:38, Angela Dall'Ara wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy Proposal, 2026-03 "Clarifying Audit and Policy Compliance Frameworks for IPv6 policies" is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to clarify the existing requirements for the IPv6 post-provisioning lifecycle, while also aligning the text with IPv4 policies.
You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/community/policies/proposals/2026-03/
As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of the Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer.
At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the WG Chairs, will decide how to proceed with the proposal.
The PDP document can be found at: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-781
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 17 November 2026.
Kind regards,
Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC ----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
----- To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
To unsubscribe from this mailing list or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/mailman3/lists/address-policy-wg.ripe.net/ As we have migrated to Mailman 3, you will need to create an account with the email matching your subscription before you can change your settings. More details at: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/mailman-3-migration/
On 19 Oct 2026, at 13:00, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear colleagues,
First, many thanks to Angela for getting the proposal published.
With the draft now available to the working group, I would like to hear your feedback.
A +1 to the proposal overall. Specific comments: The new language in the abstract limits the applicability of the policy to “Local Internet Registries (LIRs) within the RIPE NCC service region” but there are LIRs based outside of the region, for instance in Australia. It would be good to use language that makes it clear that the policy applies to all LIRs and not just those in this part of the world. In section 10, “the LIR cannot be contacted by the RIPE NCC for a significant period of time” is a bit vague. Does it mean that they can’t be contacted or that they do not respond? And how long is a significant period of time? It would be good to make this clearer as closing an LIR is such a significant action. Also in section 10, “The RIPE NCC takes on responsibility for address space held by closing LIRs.” This could be read as implying that the RIPE NCC will provide some kind of continuity of service for entities that contracted with the closed LIR. It could also be read as implying some kind of bulk transfer akin to what ICANN does with domain names (see: https://www.icann.org/en/contracted-parties/accredited-registrars/resources/...). While domains and IP addresses aren’t equivalent, that doesn’t mean that an upset end user wouldn’t read this phrase that way, gaining false hope. It would be great if this phrasing could be clarified, too. Thanks, Leo
Marco Schmidt wrote on 19/10/2026 13:00:
You will notice that I reused the audit and policy compliance wording directly from the current IPv4 policy. As RIPE NCC staff, taking a conservative approach felt like the most appropriate starting point for a policy proposal.
Having an atomic reference to a single consistently-worded audit policy is very sensible. I'm happy with this as a policy. Nick
participants (6)
-
Angela Dall'Ara -
denis walker -
Leo Vegoda -
Marco Schmidt -
Nick Hilliard -
ripe＠emigm.ax