[members-discuss] [exec-board] Change of conditions

On 12/12/2018 16:04, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 12:50:05PM +0000, Erik Bais wrote:
>> The RIPE NCC will ask proof of an actual M&A documented by a legal
>> party as a notary in case an actual M&A has occurred.
>> The RIPE policy can’t over-rule actual business decisions like an M&A
>> and with any normal business M&A this is properly documented between
>> parties, typically with a full agreement from lawyers. And that kind
>> of documentation is required.
>
> I'd like to see input from the NCC here as to what *precisely*
> constitutes acceptable documentation of a merger or acquisition.
> Is the assertion that "a full agreement from lawyers" is required
> true? I believe the NCC owes its members, at the very least,a clear
> set-out of "the rules" so members will at least be aware of how
> the NCC allows them to conduct their business.
*Without* my EB hat on and just as someone who has helped other members
over this particular hurdle, what they want is some sort of "officially
issued" documentation that an M&A has taken place. The UK has the
difficulty that no such documentation is produced by Companies House
(which is the official recorder of All Things Business). The NCC has
agreed that an affidavit with apostille is acceptable for M&As taking
place in the UK. I think that affidavits or their equivalent are
probably available in most countries, so that I would expect that where
there is no "officially issued" M&A paperwork an affidavit should do.
However, note that only those countries which have signed the 1961 Hague
Apostille convention will be able to issue a suitable affidavit which is
acceptable across national boundaries. This appears to cover pretty much
the whole RIPE NCC service region but I await Athina's official
correction of all or part of this email. Note that in order to get an
affidavit issued you will have to prove to the issuing authority that
the merger/acquisition has actually taken place. In effect what is
happening is that the NCC is transferring the burden of proof to a
competent national authority, which seems entirely reasonable to me.

Having said that, I agree with Sascha that it would seem to be
appropriate for the NCC to issue a table stating for each country what
documentation is acceptable for certifying that a M&A has taken place.
The danger of doing this is, of course, that those who's business seems
to be to attempt to defraud the membership and obtain more than their
fair share of the very scarce remaining IPv4 resource will find it
easier to do so. Against this must be balanced the better ease of those
going about their legitimate business. What do people think?

Nigel