[sig-policy] Prop-050-v003 and reversability/modification?
Hello all,
From what I could make out from the simultaneous transcription feed,
it seems that several questions were raised at the microphone about
the possibility of revising or even terminating Prop-050 if it turns
out that outcomes are not as expected. I also asked George to read
into the record my own comment from the jabber chat:
"Please consider that the address transfer policy will be irreversible
in a way that nothing has been since the RIR system was established --
it will effectively & irrevocably separate affected resources from the
policy process and jurisdiction (or at best, make their status as
ambiguous as that of "legacy" resources). Given this irreversibility,
the impacts and alternatives of this policy merit further/careful
consideration."
By contrast, I believe that Geoff and/or Randy indicated at the mike
that it would be easy enough to execute such a change if necessary.
If I followed the conversation correctly, could I ask that the
proposal's author or someone else provide a few scenarios illustrating
how any such post-facto policy modification would work, and whether &
how transferred resources would be subject to such changes? For example:
-- Once any non-legacy resource is transferred through the approved
process (at least one time, two or more times), would that resource be
subject by any future policy modifications that limited (or even
eliminated) the ability of the recipient to transfer the resource
thereafter? How would this reversion of transfer authority be asserted?
-- Once any non-legacy resource is transferred through the approved
process (at least one time, two or more times), would that resource be
subject by any existing or future RIR policy of any kind that
conflicts with recipient's property rights/interests, as defined
within his/her domain of legal jurisdiction? How would primacy of RIR
community policies over local property rights be be asserted?
I understand that the same questions could be raised about legacy
resources, and/or about any resource transfer transactions that occur
outside of the approved process (whether or not any transfer process
is, in fact, approved) -- and I suspect that the answers would not be
particularly comforting. What I'm most interested in is whether & how
the proposed transfer process would make any difference on this count.
If there is a credible expectation that meaningful fine-tuning would
remain possible after the fact, then that might make a radical
undertaking like this somewhat easier for current dissenters to
embrace...
Thanks in advance,
Tom