[address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2013100901000742] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)

Sorry I was wrong with my procedure description =( Let me clarify:
As you know currently there are a lot of assigned PI resources.

Based on RIPE NCC policy as soon as resources are not in use they must be returned to RIPE NCC. 

Now I see a 'black market' of PI resources transfer from one company to another. So company B 'purchases'  unused PI IPv4 assignment from company A based on fake buy/sell contract.

my suggestion is to allow PI to PA transfer for original companies only. i.e. company A already has PI assignment from RIPE NCC, if they want to change status from PI to PA they need to became LIR. 
If the resources were transferred from one company to another they couldn't be changed to PA because this is a variant for 'legalization' i.e. company B 'purchases' PI resources and transfers them to PA... so RIPE NCC has no reasons to return resources which were not in use... because their status was changed and now they're Allocated PA.

Or transfer with justification only.

P.S.: I'm sure there are a lot of unused PI Ipv4 resources are on hold by the guys who want to monetirize them and PI to PA transfer without limits is a major variant for same legalized transfer.


On Oct 9, 2013, at 1:02 PM, Tore Anderson wrote:

> * Andrew Noable
> 
>> I think the best opportunity is to allow PI  to PA transfer for LIR
>> only... so If a resources holder is interesting to transfer their
>> resources from PI to PA they need to be a LIR.
> 
> I believe only LIRs may hold PA space in any case. However we might
> consider whether it should be possible for (non-LIR) PI holders to
> transfer their blocks to LIRs under the provisions in section 5.5,
> converting them to PA in the process. (I wouldn't be opposed to that.)
> 
> It would be good to get an update from the NCC on which conclusions
> they've drawn from the «Guidance requested» thread and how they will
> change their procedures (if at all). To me the community's guidance
> seemed clear enough, but perhaps we need to run this through the PDP anyway?
> 
> Tore
>