Disclaimer: i'm not deeply interested in transfers, that's not what the
org i work for usually does... :)
(please see inline)
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Jim Reid wrote:
On 22 Jul 2019, at 14:26, Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg
<[email protected]> wrote:
IMHO, this is not the case here. Let's try not to fall in the false dilemma
here.
I'm sorry Piotr, I strongly disagree. The idea that was being proposed imposes
retroactive conditions on legacy address holders. Which is very wrong. Policies
should never be imposed retroactively.
I also don't really like the idea/concept.
However, it may be argued that when a transfer happens, the "new owner"
doesn't have the same rights than the legacy resource holder, because it
didn't receive the space from the original source.
But even with that, i still think a new proposal "converting" the status
is not something favourable to a legacy resource holder.
Plus, i still think the status shouldn't even be allowed to change...
(but i know i'm most likely alone on that one...)
If implemented, the suggested policy will discourage legacy holders
from co-operating with the NCC,
It has the same effect on coooperation with ARIN/AFRINIC/APNIC/LACNIC ?
Which in turn encourages "creative"
solutions to get around that hypothetical problem and therefore bring
about new ways to undermine the integrity of the NCC database.
Well, looking at the other 4 regions' status on this topic, probably the
most creative solution is to push the transfer through the RIPE NCC...
:-))
Regards,
Carlos
I fail to see what the false dichotomy is. Or could be.
