This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Erik Bais
erik at bais.name
Thu Apr 12 19:50:46 CEST 2012
I don't agree with the current policy. Reasoning : As Gert already stated: companies will find ways around this anyway by selling parts of their companies / stocks which would have the IP’s otherwise. I already heard of a situation where an Asian based company opened a UK ltd just to become a RIPE LIR member in order to be able to apply for IP in our region. Bottom line is. People with a specific goal are cunning and more creative than what we allow or not in a specific policy. Especially if (a lot of) money is involved. However by releasing this policy, (semi)authorizing a market that would prolong IPv4 lifetime and further delay v6 deployment, would give the wrong signal to the public in my personal opinion. Any kind of transfer of unused space, should go back to the RIR and not end up with the highest bidder. The sooner people realize that v4 is soo 2000, the better for us all. Regards, Erik Bais
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]