[address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)

Hi Dave, 

First of all thanks for your lengthy response and let me reply on it.  

> With such a policy in place, IP address broker needs to offers potential
IP space buyers only a marginally lower price than the cost of being a LIR
for the expected duration of use of 
> the IPv4 PI space in question (and requesting this IP space from the last
/8 or realizing an inter-LIR PA transfer) in order to create a perverse
incentive for IPv4 address buyers to line 
> the pockets of IP address brokers instead of stepping up and becoming
members of the RIPE NCC.

Brokers don't own IP address. Same as that your house if you sell it, will
never transfer ownership into the hands of the house broker, IP addresses
are transferred between offering and receiving parties. The broker doesn't
set the price, the offering party decides what the price is and has the
final say if they want to agree on a bid that the receiving party is making.


> This policy appears to fail the most basic economic incentive test, and
will in practice create a secondary and desirable 'asset class' from which
IP transfer brokers benefit considerably
>  more than the community as a whole.

This policy isn't about economic incentives. I don't hold PI space, although
I have a lot of customers that do. The policy goal is to provide a way to
officially register PI transfer (which are already being done) to be
correctly reflected into the registry in order to keep the registry
accurate. 

> To deconstruct the arguments which purportedly support this proposal:

> a) "Currently the policy for PA and PI space isn't the same and people
don't understand the difference between the various types of IP Space."

> Ignoring that this is a superfluous argument which goes in the face of
nearly two decades of policy, this appears to argue that letting PI space be
sold would somehow eliminate this distinction.

> This, of course, is disingenuous. If this is indeed the goal, a policy
should be introduced to allow PI space to be converted into PA space and
assigned to a LIR
> - this will enable its "transferability" and eliminate many of the
concerns raised above by ensuring that all holders of "transferred" IPv4
space are first rate LIRs who contribute financially toward the operation of
the RIPE NCC and fall under all obligations > imposed on such.

Not all are created equal ... not everyone who has PI space or want PI space
(and not PA space due to the requirement of becoming a member to that scary
group of internet hippies that talk about bits and bytes or other legal
reasons.. and have secret meeting with people attending like Randy Bush,
yourself or Job Snijders ... ). Some entities can't, due to legal
restrictions, can't become a part of a membership association ... So their
only option is to either obtain PI space or ERX space. 
And PI space is the only of those 2 that is non-transferrable currently.
Asking my customers to hand over their PI space into our LIR, would make us
the owner .. Asking them to become an LIR themselves, import the PI space
and convert the space to PA, is just a detour, without any added value to
the parties involved .. The offering party, the receiving party, RIPE ... We
are trying to make things easier .. and accurate ... 

> b) "There is already some trade in PI space, however it is not documented
or registered, which doesn't help to keep the registry updated."

> This is also disingenuous, as every IPv4 PI space holder has a contract
with the sponsoring LIR (and indirectly, with the RIPE NCC). This LIR can,
and should, regularly verify and update these details in cooperation with
the registrant.

There are a few exceptions, but can you name me 10 LIR's out of the 10.000
which have more than 10 PI objects .. all documents approved and which do
regular (once every 2 years ?) checks with their customers if their PI
contracts are up to date ? 
I think that you might need to take of your pink glasses to this world ...
We both go a long way back and I have you in high regards, but your view to
this is too optimistic imho. 

I've seen documents been signed between 2 companies as side letters because
they wanted to transfer the PI space and policy didn't let them ... I've
been asked by interested parties who were ready to sign on the dotted line
to purchase IP space and asked me for a second pair of eyes before they
did.. And people have no idea, no clue.  ( No offence .. it is my personal
observation ) We spend a LOT of time explaining to customers the differences
between the various types of IP space if they ask us what the status is if
they want to purchase of transfer IP space.  

> c) "A lot of current PI space holders are more than happy to have their
assignments re-assigned to other parties, but due to the current policy it
is not possible. The same goes for the documentation provided to the RIPE
NCC during mergers or 
> acquisitions of infrastructure with PI space. Due to the current policy,
some changes in company names are marked as mergers or acquisitions when
they are actually a transfer of IP space with added documentation to make it
look like an merger 
> or acquisition of infrastructure."

> If a legitimate transfer has occurred as part of legitimate organizational
restructuring, there is no disincentive to document it. The disincentive
only exists if the registrant fears the transfer's legitimacy may be
questioned, which is exactly the intention 
> for non-transferable, end-user assigned PI space.
> Such transferred allocations could, and should, per current policy, be
simply reclaimed.

Simply reclaimed ... that doesn't happen .. as it would simply go to the
pool, while there are people that are currently offering money for the space
..Either in currently non-approved sales or long term leases etc. 

None of them are correctly documented in the registry ... Which is the
end-goal .. to have a proper registry of who the current holder and user
is.. 

If people are not properly registered in the RIPE Registry with the space
they have, they will never be able to certify their resources under RPKI for
instance .. as the maintainers don't match, the legitimate holder isn't
correct etc etc. 
The long-term goal is to have the registry correctly updated, (fair)
distribution isn't a role or goal of RIPE anymore. The market will deal with
that themselves. 

> d) "We want to have an open and honest communication to the RIPE NCC from
the community and we need to make sure that the registry is up to date,
without having to fluff up the procedures, bend the rules and truth in
communication to the 
> RIPE NCC to be able to transfer the IP space."

> Alternatively, elements which "bend the rules and truth" could be
identified, and, within reason, have their resources reclaimed. Certainly,
such enforcement can never be perfect - but speed traps also do not catch
100% of speeding cars.
> With a few documented instances, this would create tremendous uncertainty
and disincentive to engage in such practices from the buy side, as it will
mean that any resources acquired in this manner may very suddenly get
written off.

The RIPE NCC and her staff isn't the internet police .. and the policies
should reflect the current status ... Which is to be able to maintain a
proper Internet Resource Registry. 
There is currently no requirement anymore to document need or documentation
requirement anymore .. The idea that fair distribution is still in place is
obsolete. There is currently a reservation for new LIR's that they can
obtain a single /22 via the NCC, but they can't get more space.  There are
still some checks which the NCC will do even with this policy in place, to
see if the original (legal) documentation to which the PI was provided was
correct at the moment of assignment. 
But for the rest, the process should be fairly similar as with the current
PA Transfers. 

> e) "The goal of this policy change is to get PI space on-par with PA space
in respect to the ability to transfer it."
> See (a). It seems very disingenuous to make PI and PA "equal for purposes
of transferability" but maintain the distinction in all other aspects.

If we would work around this via the loop-hole you suggested, import the PI
space into an LIR and transfer it to PA and then transfer the space.. how
would that make it different to what we are proposing ? 
The proposed proposal to allow PI space to be transferred will make it a lot
easier. 

> To summarize, I strongly object to this policy in its current form.

> I concur that the mobility of IPv4 PI space toward those who value it most
is desirable - on the condition that this mobility occurs as part of a wider
reform to eliminate the distinction between PA and PI status of IPv4
resources.

> This should result in equitable burden for all resource holders toward the
RIPE NCC instead of lining the pockets of IP address brokers by helping
address space speculators which presently hoard IPv4 PI assignments against
policy realize profits 
> at the expense of the community.

Your missing the point Dave. People who hoarded are not brokers, brokers
make a fee on a transaction ... Your so called hoarders are offering
parties, but I doubt that you can show in numbers, a substantial number of
hoarders as you call them, that would make a substantial amount of money
which would justify not doing the policy and not allow a proper registration
in the registry for those that have legitimate reasons.  

Regards,
Erik Bais