[address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
apwg at c4inet.net
Fri Oct 21 12:57:07 CEST 2016
You would do well to take some lessons in debate culture yourself. You're -not even too veiledly- accusing another member of abuse, something we have heard altogether too much of lately. As for 2015-04, I oppose it as it tries yet again to bring M&A under policy regulation (s. 2.2) which the community has no business doing. Further, I am fundamentally opposed to the tactic of including the unpalatable with the desirable. I would support 2015-04 if it restricted itself to collating transfer policy in one document without imposing further restrictions. rgds, Sascha Luck On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:45:01PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote: >> What you say could be expressed (again it's a metaphor) like >> this: > >If you're interested in swaying the opinion in your favour you >would do well by avoiding arguing by using metaphors or colurful >paraphrasing, and instead argue the individual items you >apparently so very much disagree with. > >> As for the takeovers, it's not that I wouldn't get into >> details. My previous employer has acuired probably over 100 >> other companies. Every case was particular and some took years >> to integrate. You can not sell the IPs before integrating >> their network. >> >> In all the situations, even when we know there was an >> agreement for acquisition of company X, it wasn't absorbed >> overnight. The process is complex and involves approvals from >> various authorities, integration of the network, migration of >> customers and in the end you can draw the line and mark as >> unused the as number, IPs, computers, etc. > >You conveniently side-stepped answering the case I described. >Note that I wrote "*solely* for the purpose of of getting a >/22...". In that case there would be no customers to move or >networks to merge. I would say it is incumbent upon you to >justify that we should keep this loophole as wide as a truck in >the policy. > >The 24-month holding period puts a damper on this avenue of >abuse against the intention of the last /8 policy, and would put >a little bit more longevity into the availability of the >resources under that policy. It may be that this diminishes >your company's prospects of near-future income, to which I would >say that basing your buisness on the abuse of something which is >perceived as a common resource is perhaps not worthy of so much >sympathy? > >Regards, > >- Håvard >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]