Hi Jordi. > I know about ripe-639. > > What I’m saying is that we force the change of status from non-legacy to > legacy if addresses are transferred to a new member or an existing member, as > both of them will have all the legal bindings already with RIPE NCC.
A legal entity can have zero, one or more LIRs. You are saying that we can abuse the contract that we have with those with one or more LIRs to force them into a position that we don't apply to those with zero LIRs? Also: when I have multiple LIRs, which LIR should get the legacy resources? And if I can choose which LIR, then I choose "none". > 639 was defined a couple of years before the transfers policy. It may be > perfectly possible that at that time it was not considered this aspect. This is incorrect. We have had transfers since RIPE-441 from December 2008. The choices around transfers were very consciously made. > I know that every region is different, but we live in a global Internet, and > it is surprising to me that we are the only out of 5 RIRs, that has not done > this already. RIPE has respect for the rights of the people who came before it :) Sander
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
