[address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations

I think you mix "preventing making profit" and "assure available IPv4 space to new entrants".

As I calculated (and presented my results some days ago) reselling has low impact on IPv4 exhaustion.

So the only reason (as I see it) is just to prevent earning money.

Therefore I have reasonable question: why do some members worry about someone's profit?

And PLEASE don't tell me about "abusing". As somebody said earlier in current discussion there are big IP-blocks allocated before Sep. 2012 without real need.
Just because "we used all previously allocated space". Holders of such blocks are much strong "abusers".

25.04.2015, 15:42, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike at swm.pp.se>:
>  On Sat, 25 Apr 2015, Infinity Telecom SRL wrote:
>>   How its possible to ask RIPE NCC in 2010-2011 to give you bunch of /15
>>   /16 /17 and to day.. your company not need it any more..
>  Some people have started putting their customer base behind NAT44(4) to
>  shift IPv4 address usage from a customer base that will not complain too
>  loudly to end up behind NAT44(4), to a customer base where NAT44(4) would
>  cause a lot of problem.
>
>  So this "need" is always relative. I don't know if you're trying to claim
>  that the providers didn't need these addresses?
>
>  After the investment in NAT44 has been taken (which might have involved
>  hundreds of thousands or millions of EUR), some might discover that they
>  actually can do without some IPv4 addresses they needed before, and thus
>  they might put it on the market because it makes business sense. This
>  doesn't mean they didn't need it, and these addresses can always be proven
>  to be needed, it's just that if the market price for IPv4 addresses is
>  high enough, then it makes sense to sell.
>
>  It's like my old chairs I have in the corner, that I use occasionally. If
>  I get enough money for them, I might sell them. Does this mean I do not
>  need them? Well, I can prove to you that I do use them (thus I have some
>  kind of need for them), but I can find alternatives if I get enough money.
>  This is a grey area, not black and white.
>>   Very hard to understand this..
>>
>>   Right now i should find a why to help new LIRs or old LIRs, but truly
>>   companies not ghosts that want to make profit !
>  That's what the current policy proposal change is all about, to make sure
>  that the business case for "start LIR, get /22, transfer /22, shut down
>  LIR" isn't too much better than the market price for IPv4 addresses.
>  Exactly to stop people absuing the system for profit.
>
>  Yes, it's profit even if you keep it for yourself and don't sell it,
>  because you've now lowered your cost, acquiring a resource at a lower
>  price than you would have if you followed the intent of the policy.
>
>  You seem to mix up intent of policy, and what the policy actually says.
>  The intent has always been to assure available IPv4 space to new entrants
>  to the market, so they can get started. So if you did the "start LIR, get
>  /22, transfer /22, shut down LIR" then you might not have violated the
>  policy, but you were not following the intent of why the policy is the way
>  it is. So that's why the policy is now proposed to be changed, so that it
>  more closely follows the intent behind it.
>
>  --
>  Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se

-- 
With best regards, Vladimir Andreev
General director, QuickSoft LLC
Tel: +7 903 1750503