[address-policy-wg] 2013-05 New Policy Proposal (No Restrictions on End User Assignments in Intra-RIR Transfers)

* David Farmer

> On 8/16/13 17:32 , Tore Anderson wrote:
>> If an LIR wants to get out of the internet registry business and sell
>> off its allocations, it can always just purge them of assignments first
>> (even with your requirement in place). The End Users probably won't be
>> very pleased about being kicked out on the street so to speak, but c'est
>> la vie...
> 
> If you really think it is OK

The direction *my* moral compass is pointing is irrelevant (and for the
record not stated either).

> for an LIR to drop an End User's assignments when every they want to,

Our current IPv4 policy doesn't prohibit this, so it is indeed "OK" and
sanctioned by our current IPv4 policy. It actually takes care to point
out that PA assignments are *not* irrevocable:

«End Users requesting PA space should be given this or a similar warning:

Assignment of this IP space is valid as long as the criteria for the
original assignment are met and only for the duration of the service
agreement between yourself and us. We have the right to reassign the
address space to another user upon termination of this agreement or an
agreed period thereafter. This means that you will have to re-configure
the addresses of all equipment using this IP space if you continue to
require global uniqueness of those addresses.»

As I think Sylvain was saying too, the only true protection afforded an
End User against having his assignments being revoked for whatever
reason, is the contractual terms he has negotiated in the service
agreement with his LIR.

> then why isn't it OK for RIPE to drop an LIR's allocations and auction
> them off to the highest bidders?

Because that is not sanctioned by the RIPE Community's policies.

> Societal rules of conduct don't usually prevent anyone from breaking
> them, and many times people aren't directly punished for breaking these
> rules, but that doesn't mean society is a better place without such rules.

The proposal does not remove any social rules of conduct as far as I can
tell.

I think the proposal is fine as it is, and that tacking on a "the End
Users must agree" condition isn't likely to accomplish anything that's
actually helpful to the End Users. I think it would be more likely to
either result in an ultimatum: "agree or be kicked out" (and if they do
agree they'll probably end up being kicked out by the new allocation
holder a few days later instead); or that the transferring LIR simply
doesn't want the bother and instead just purges all assignments before
the transfer is registered.

In a nutshell: If the new holder's plans for the allocation doesn't
include the old End Users, they're screwed anyway (regardless of 2013-05
being in place or not). However if the new holder does want to keep the
old End Users and their assignments around, then this proposal is
actually beneficial for all involved parties.

Tore