[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published

Hi Lu,

On 6/10/2015 11:50 AM, Lu Heng wrote:
> Hi Ciprian:
> 
> Since it become personal attack again, I feel the need to responds. But at
> least this time it was not random gmail address used by someone to hide
> their identity. So I will responds:

I would never hide when wanting to express my opinions. I don't have
anything personal with you, it is a random example of the many abuses
that I have noticed and I stick to my opinion that it was an abuse.

> Here is your example and my company happened to be the receivee to all of
> three allocation you have mentioned.

Not your company, I've checked the original inetnums and at that time
the allocations were made to you as a natural person.

> My company as far as I can see, has growth substantially in past 3 years,
> while I receive the allocation, there is no one I know from the hostmaster
> team and in fact, I had huge debate with one of the hostmasters back then,
> elvis, strong argument, days and nights argument, I can tell you, it was
> not easy to get these allocations. And all the allocation I received was
> according to the policy.

It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by
the same person that has initiated this proposal.

> You are accusing me "abuse", please provide evident since you are doing it
> in a public space.

That is my opinion based on the facts that I already mentioned.

> And to best of my knowledge,  RIPE NCC board has never been involved in any
> of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much
> double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your
> allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, please
> help to clarify).

Well, maybe it was not your case since you were showing a very
convincing growth exactly in the last year. Unlike you the company I
worked for was just a simple corporation with over 5000 employees, over
2 million subscribers and yes, I was denied a /13, only received about
half and that was after the thorough analysis. Below is the mail I
received confirming this:

> Because of the size, the request will go now through an approval
> process that involves the RIPE NCC management. This may take up
> to 3 working days.
> This means that the size of the request is not approved yet and
> might change depending on the outcome of the approval process.
>
> If there are any questions do please let me know.
>
> Regards,
>
>David Hilario
>RIPE NCC IP Resource Analyst


> More over, receiving large IP space does not equal to large ISP, I think
> this is just common knowledge. There are tons of IP intensive service out
> there in which has nothing to do with individual customers(CDN for example).
> 
> Hope this clarify things and the subject should not be bought up at
> personal level again.

Yes, right, I'm sure you make a good point and everything is reasonable.
Sorry for being unable to understand your arguments.

> Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and
> not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify this
> to the community because this is not the first time personally attack
> happening here(and not just to me and my company).

I don't seek anyone's agreement, I'm presenting facts and raising
questions. The final one would be: Is this policy going to protect the
value of the assets that were obtained through abuse in the past ?

Yours,
Ciprian Nica