Search RPD Archives
[rpd] New version of AFPUB-2019-IPv4-002-DRAFT03 "IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)"
owen at delong.com
Thu Nov 28 18:03:57 UTC 2019
> On Nov 26, 2019, at 10:33 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Jordi
> The text seems fine despite the change of wording on some parts, at the end they means about the same thing. I have 2 points to note:
> - on 5.7.6 it says "information permitted by the source or recipient". Although there is minimum mandatory information that must be published, I understand the wording allow the RIR to publish extra information or notes about the transaction ? How likely is that to happen and what examples of information would be that ? Could you clarify a bit further.
Entities who wish to support price transparency may be willing to publish that information.
Entities may be willing to provide additional information to the community about their purpose in obtaining/releasing resources and/or any other data which might be of interest to researchers, policy analysts, etc. in the future.
In terms of likelihood, I suspect it will seldom be utilized, but I see zero benefit to closing the door on it in policy.
> - On 18.104.22.168 there is a possibility, should the staff finds a transaction suspicious, to escalate it for the Board for a final decision. I normally think this type of individual thing should not end up in the Board, but internally inside the staff in a well defined appeal process because they are staff decisions (e.g: appeal to the Manager, Director, CEO, etc). The Board should only be involved in something that affects several members or a number of organizations (for example to preemptively suspend a policy that may be damaging the RIR or the Community, etc). The same way the Board can always issue statements for staff on certain topics and procedures but always in a more generic way.
I would prefer an escalation staff->manager->CEO->board, but I’m not going to get overly fussed about the current state of the policy.
Personally, I think that 22.214.171.124 should be unnecessary as it’s more of an operational matter than a policy issue, but again, not overly bothered about it.
> Best regards
> Fernando Frediani
> On 26/11/2019 14:58, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Find attached a new version of the proposal "IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)".
>> As usual, I've considered the inputs received.
>> I've also prepared a diff with the previous version:
>> https://www.diffchecker.com/azpn4DK0 <https://www.diffchecker.com/azpn4DK0>
>> IPv4 is over
>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> http://www.theipv6company.com <http://www.theipv6company.com/>
>> The IPv6 Company
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD