[address-policy-wg] Future of Re: [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Future of Re: [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Future of Re: [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tom Smyth
tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu
Thu Jun 11 16:02:57 CEST 2015
I suggest add a filter in your mail if subject Re: [address-policy-wg] Future of Re: [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Action Delete On 11 Jun 2015 13:57, "Garry Glendown" <garry at nethinks.com> wrote: > > >> I will readily admit that I can not come up with a text which prevents > >> abuse _and_ allows for valid operational needs, though. > > Indeed. Mergers & acquisitions are real-world business events that APWG > > cannot affect. I see a big nut to crack on how to address abuse via > > "illegitimate" M&A, including figuring out what is and what is not > > "illegitimate" and "abuse". > I reckon if/when this proposal has gone through (either confirmed or > rejected), some sane solution to this whole thing has to be found ... as > several people - even some nay-sayers - have said, the current proposal > does not cover enough bases to discourage or prevent policy abuse. > > I'm sure that - as it has a direct impact on the business of both > IP-brokers and wannabe-profiteers - it will face even stronger > opposition by several people, but most likely no substantial arguments > (as we have already seen these last couple days - after all, saying "it > will cut in my personal profit" won't be a valid argument against the > policy to knowingly cut into profits of policy-abusers in order to allow > late entries into the ISP market some affordable set of IPv4 addresses). > > Without really thinking about all possibilities, I would imagine there > are certain reasons for or against the transfer of IPs, though some > wording and "way of proof" would have to be found that be used to decide > whether a transfer was permitted or not ... > > From the top of my head, for a transfer, certain situations come to mind: > > * merger/acquisition of company (can be proved through official > papers/registration information) > * is there actually any other justifiable reason? > > Personally, I would see certain use cases where a transfer is not > necessary for any technical/organizational reasons: (which may even > weigh stronger than e.g. the merger/acquisition argument) > > * shutdown of an ISP or company, where loss of IP usage would not impact > customers (current use is terminated, IPs are no longer announced) > * IPs were never (publicly?) used or only intermittently announced (how > could actual use be documented apart from just an announcement? Would an > announcement on the Internet be sufficient?), or have been unused for a > certain amount of time (3 months?) > > Due to the fact that IP addresses (especially PAs assigned to an LIR) > are not "owned" by the LIR (in part documented by the yearly bill for > the resource) IPs should not count as an asset with monetary value, thus > allowing the RIR to collect them if policy requirements aren't met. > > Possibly: Requirement to announce and use IPs from last-/8 within 3 > months of assignment, otherwise the non-transferal-duration would be > extended by 1 year > > *putting on flame-resistant armor* > > -garry > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150611/81103e53/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Future of Re: [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Future of Re: [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]