[address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)

Dear David, everyone,

(sorry for the top-posting, it's going to be my conclusion in this thread)

what you are suggesting is to say... you want to sell your PI, pay 
sign-up fee and one year membership to the RIPE NCC and then you can 
sell/transfer it and close shop. This is already possible today...

I don't think your proposed way of action would be a better alternative 
than the current policy proposal, it would just include an additional 
hop preventing data accuracy. You can talk about contracts as much as 
you want, these will never be enforced, nobody has the manpower and/or 
the tools to enforce them. Not the LIR and not even the RIPE NCC.

The world is moving towards removing all the limitations imposed by 
policy. I don't think adding your suggested limitation will help the 
development of IPv4 policies.

my 2 cents,
Elvis

PS: I fully understand your reasoning and in a perfect world, all the 
IPs not needed would return to the RIPE NCC for re-allocation. 
Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world :(

On 18/04/14 02:17, David Monosov wrote:
> Dear address-policy-wg, Elvis,
>
> On 04/18/2014 12:59 AM, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> On 17/04/14 22:02, David Monosov wrote:
>>> Dear address-policy-wg,
>>>
>>> With such a policy in place, IP address broker needs to offers potential IP
>>> space buyers only a marginally lower price than the cost of being a LIR for the
>>> expected duration of use of the IPv4 PI space in question (and requesting this
>>> IP space from the last /8 or realizing an inter-LIR PA transfer) in order to
>>> create a perverse incentive for IPv4 address buyers to line the pockets of IP
>>> address brokers instead of stepping up and becoming members of the RIPE NCC.
>>>
>>> This policy appears to fail the most basic economic incentive test, and will in
>>> practice create a secondary and desirable 'asset class' from which IP transfer
>>> brokers benefit considerably more than the community as a whole.
>> There is already a market of IP addresses. Nobody will care about the color of
>> the IP addresses once they will really need those numbers.
> I concur, which is why I don't see why any IP address buyer would have a problem
> with registering as a LIR and becoming part of the RIPE NCC with all that
> entails before receiving IPv4 space of any color.
>
>>> To deconstruct the arguments which purportedly support this proposal:
>>>
>>> a) "Currently the policy for PA and PI space isn’t the same and people don’t
>>> understand the difference between the various types of IP Space."
>>>
>>> Ignoring that this is a superfluous argument which goes in the face of nearly
>>> two decades of policy, this appears to argue that letting PI space be sold would
>>> somehow eliminate this distinction.
>>>
>>> This, of course, is disingenuous. If this is indeed the goal, a policy should be
>>> introduced to allow PI space to be converted into PA space and assigned to a LIR
>>> - this will enable its "transferability" and eliminate many of the concerns
>>> raised above by ensuring that all holders of "transferred" IPv4 space are first
>>> rate LIRs who contribute financially toward the operation of the RIPE NCC and
>>> fall under all obligations imposed on such.
>> Are you saying that every holder of PI space should become an LIR before they
>> could transfer it?
>> Why would they pay €3600 (1600 for the yearly membership and 2000 for the
>> sign-up fee) to the RIPE NCC when they could just do it in a contract?
> That is exactly what I am suggesting.
>
> Since getting new IPv4 PI space from the RIPE NCC is no longer possible, and
> since those IPv4 PI addresses were assigned specifically with the condition that
> they are used by a specific end user for numbering a specific infrastructure
> which they declared at the time of the request - there is no reason why existing
> IPv4 PI space assignees would suddenly find themselves in the possession of a
> valuable commodity to dispose of as they please when it is no longer of use to
> them in the original capacity of the assignment.
>
> There is no "just do it in a contract", this is explicitly against the terms set
> forth by both the PI assignment policies, and by the End User contract which
> every end user has signed. PI space transferred in this manner is in violation
> of the contract and is subject to revocation. There may be some lack of policing
> of this issue from the side of RIPE NCC, but that's just a question of time and
> will. The infrastructure, policy, and contractual basis are well established.
>
>> Or are you saying that PI holders should just give their PI to the friendly LIR
>> which can then convert it to PA and transfer it? Who will make the buck then?
>> Should the PI holder retain any rights once the address is transferred to the
>> 'friendy' LIR or will the LIR be allowed to just transfer the new allocation to
>> whoever they want?
>>> b) "There is already some trade in PI space, however it is not documented or
>>> registered, which doesn’t help to keep the registry updated."
>>>
>>> This is also disingenuous, as every IPv4 PI space holder has a contract with the
>>> sponsoring LIR (and indirectly, with the RIPE NCC). This LIR can, and should,
>>> regularly verify and update these details in cooperation with the registrant.
>> let's think about this scenario..You are an LIR and you have 500 PI customers
>> for which you are Sponsoring LIR, you will probably call the PI holder or send
>> him an e-mail to verify that they still exist because at least once a year you
>> will be paying a fee to the RIPE NCC for the maintenance of that PI. If the PI
>> holder says that he still has the same contact details and the IP addresses are
>> still used, what resources will you invest to verify that the holder of the
>> address space is still the one documented in the RIPE Database?
>> - do not forget, you (as LIR) pay €50/year for the maintenance of the resource
>> to the RIPE NCC and probably make (in average) €25-50/year/resource yourself...
> Let us indeed think about this scenario. 2007-01 introduced a set of contractual
> specifics which the end user must agree to in order to continue holding an
> assignment. A model contract is available at
> http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/independent-resources/independent-assignment-request-and-maintenance-agreement-1
>
> If you review the items in article 4:
>
> - Terms a, b, and c specifically establish that the resources are to be used
> only by a specific user, for a specific purpose, and are never the property of
> the end user, and are non-transferable.
>
> - Term e requires specifically that the end user provides up to date information
> about the resource and end user.
>
> - Article 4.4 explicitly allows RIPE NCC to revoke assignments if these terms
> are not met.
>
> A variation of this contract including these terms is signed by every single PI
> holder. This means every LIR is already under the obligation to ensure
> compliance, and every end user is already subject to having the assigned
> resources revoked for violating the terms laid out in the contract.
>
> What the LIR chooses to charge in order to fulfill these obligations in overhead
> is completely at the discretion of the LIR. It stands to reason that as the
> scarcity of IPv4 addresses becomes more pressing, additional effort would be
> placed into auditing and resource reclamation by the RIPE NCC, and thus
> additional costs will be passed by LIRs to their customers to ensure on-going
> compliance - costs which customers will undoubtedly be willing to bear to avoid
> risking the loss of the assigned resource.
>
>> I think that bringing in the registry/database all the PI transfers that
>> currently happen without proper registration/update is the most important goal
>> which this proposal will achieve.
> The existing contracts between the RIPE NCC, the LIR, and the End User already
> require this, and there is an explicit clause that enables revocation if this
> obligation is not met.
>
>>> c) "A lot of current PI space holders are more than happy to have their
>>> assignments re-assigned to other parties, but due to the current policy it is
>>> not possible. The same goes for the documentation provided to the RIPE NCC
>>> during mergers or acquisitions of infrastructure with PI space. Due to the
>>> current policy, some changes in company names are marked as mergers or
>>> acquisitions when they are actually a transfer of IP space with added
>>> documentation to make it look like an merger or acquisition of infrastructure."
>>>
>>> If a legitimate transfer has occurred as part of legitimate organizational
>>> restructuring, there is no disincentive to document it. The disincentive only
>>> exists if the registrant fears the transfer's legitimacy may be questioned,
>>> which is exactly the intention for non-transferable, end-user assigned PI space.
>>> Such transferred allocations could, and should, per current policy, be simply
>>> reclaimed.
>> Who will give up their address space? The numbers are now considered assets and
>> may be worth a buck or two...
>> Or would you rather see PI never transferable and the RIPE NCC reclaiming it
>> when it's no longer needed?
> Not everyone are quite as eager to throw years of policy work under a bus at the
> first sight of financial incentive. I have personally returned several PI
> assignments over the past few years under various hats. I'm positively sure I am
> not alone in this.
>
>>> d) "We want to have an open and honest communication to the RIPE NCC from the
>>> community and we need to make sure that the registry is up to date, without
>>> having to fluff up the procedures, bend the rules and truth in communication to
>>> the RIPE NCC to be able to transfer the IP space."
>>>
>>> Alternatively, elements which "bend the rules and truth" could be identified,
>>> and, within reason, have their resources reclaimed. Certainly, such enforcement
>>> can never be perfect - but speed traps also do not catch 100% of speeding cars.
>> Please come up with a proposal for this reclamation process; I'd really love to
>> see it on the mailing list.
> There is no need for this. The grounds for reclamation are already clearly
> outlined in article 4.4 of the contract signed by each end user as mentioned
> above. The rest is an operational matter.
>
>>> With a few documented instances, this would create tremendous uncertainty and
>>> disincentive to engage in such practices from the buy side, as it will mean that
>>> any resources acquired in this manner may very suddenly get written off.
>> So, once the RIPE NCC would reclaim something that was transferred without it's
>> approval, it should tell the whole world? What about the privacy of the
>> communication that the RIPE NCC is so proud of? How would you document such an
>> instance?
> Once the RIPE NCC has reclaimed something transferred without its approval, it
> can publish an aggregate statistics on the number of addresses revoked, perhaps
> as part of its annual report.
>
> This will not in any way infringe on anyone's privacy but serve as an obvious
> deterrent by demonstrating that this does, in fact, happen, when policy is
> blatantly disregarded.
>
>>> e) "The goal of this policy change is to get PI space on-par with PA space in
>>> respect to the ability to transfer it."
>>>
>>> See (a). It seems very disingenuous to make PI and PA "equal for purposes of
>>> transferability" but maintain the distinction in all other aspects.
>> There will no longer be many distinction between PI and PA. The only one I can
>> think of is that PA can be further assigned. Maybe we should come up with a
>> policy proposal to allow PI sub-assignments and remove the differences between
>> PA and PI in that process? I only see a problem, the same one I faced with IPv6
>> unification, the fee unification.
>>> To summarize, I strongly object to this policy in its current form.
>>>
>>> I concur that the mobility of IPv4 PI space toward those who value it most is
>>> desirable - on the condition that this mobility occurs as part of a wider reform
>>> to eliminate the distinction between PA and PI status of IPv4 resources.
>> This policy proposal is the first step, you could try and make the next step and
>> propose a bigger change. From my experience (just last year) the community gets
>> scared when you start talking about big changes (I was trying to unify IPv6 PA
>> and PI, without even having all the conspiracy theory about brokers flying
>> around my ears). These big changes will never work.
>>> This should result in equitable burden for all resource holders toward the RIPE
>>> NCC instead of lining the pockets of IP address brokers by helping address space
>>> speculators which presently hoard IPv4 PI assignments against policy realize
>>> profits at the expense of the community.
>> IP brokers can and are already helping others to get the address space they need
>> by brokering PA transactions. Why do you think that enabling IPv4 PI transfers
>> will be the benefit of only the Brokers?
>>
>> I think this policy proposal is in the benefit of us all:
>> - cleaner registry
>> - all holders of address space (PA or PI) can monetize it equally ;)
>> - remove any temptations to 'bend the rules'
>>
> I think this policy will accomplish exactly two things:
>
> - Introduce a bureaucratic nightmare requiring the changing of all existing end
> user contracts, as what it proposes is a direct violation of the terms set out
> in article 4 of the model contract (and the contractual requirements the RIPE
> NCC imposed on LIRs who created their own end user contracts as part of 2007-01).
>
> - Reward those in the community who have chosen to hoard IPv4 PI assignments in
> instead of return them in blatant disregard of the policy they have agreed to
> during the initial assignment, and again upon signing the end user contract.
>
> Neither of these things is desirable.
>
>> PS: I hope you do know that a transfer can happen without brokers having to be
>> involved. Actually, I am under the impression that most of the transfers (in
>> numbers of transfers and not of IPs) have been made by LIRs mutually agreeing to
>> the transfer via the Listing Service and not via brokers/escrow. When it comes
>> to large blocks and a lot of money, some prefer to have a broker in the middle,
>> for the safety of both parties.
>>> --
>>> Respectfully yours,
>>>
>>> David Monosov
>>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Elvis
>>
> --
>
> Respectfully yours,
>
> David Monosov
>


-- 
<http://v4escrow.net> 	


  Elvis Daniel Velea


    Chief Business Analyst

Email: elvis at V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis at v4escrow.net>
US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914
EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914

Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in:

This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain 
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have 
received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140418/94633883/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5043 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140418/94633883/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11971 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140418/94633883/attachment-0001.png>