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

Hi Wilfried,

I agree with you in both scenarios you described below.
However, the reality of the current world is not that simple.

IP addresses have a value, whether we want to acknowledge that fact or not.

Some holders of PI address space have also realized that their PI space 
has some value, some will do the right thing and become LIRs in order to 
convert the PI to PA and then transfer the space. This policy proposal 
does not intend to address these users, the ones that will do the right 
thing by becoming a member and paying their share.

Some others, will just transfer the space (by making a 
contract/document/agreement between them and an other party) or just 
allow someone else to use the address space without any notification to 
the RIPE NCC or updates in the registry.
While these are the 'bad guys' and I do not thing we should be making 
policy changes to encourage them, by not making a policy change the 
registry will suffer. Not everyone will give up on their PI space if 
they do not use it anymore. Especially if they receive e-mails from 
people that want to 'rent/lease' their space for some money.

I still don't know if it's a good thing to allow PI transfers and have 
individuals or companies that have only been paying 50E/year to transfer 
(sell) their PI space for a nice profit
AND
keep the registry as clean and updated as possible.

OR.. give the RIPE NCC a mandate to start hunting those that violate the 
PI policy

OR.. just pretend there's no problem and accept that the registry data 
may get outdated with time.

my 2 cents,
elvis

On 24/04/14 17:24, Wilfried Woeber wrote:
> A couple of observations, fwiw, and no, I'm not going to assess the role
> of brokers :-)
>
> In general, let me start with the statement that I support all ideas to
> get rid of the different shapes and colours of address blocks. And that
> actually includes Legacy, as they are simply PI, just a tad older...
>
> How to deal with moving address space from a PI assignment to a different
> party?
>
> Well, I can see 2 *substantially* different scenarios:
>
> 1) the current holder of the address block doesn't need *all of it* any longer
>     (and wants to get money from an interested party, but that's a side issue).
>
> 2) the current holder of the address block doesn't need *any* of the addresses
>     any longer and wants to transfer the full block, in one chunk or in smaller
>     pieces.
>
>
> Nr. 1 is pretty easy, and possible already or really soon now: convert the
> PI block to PA, thus become an LIR, and proceed according to the rules.
>
>
> Nr. 2 is more tricky. First of all, there was a good reason, why the resource
> was tightly bound to the requester. That background and assumption is also
> part of the basis for the low annual fee of €50,- per resource.
>
> Now, as soon as the original criteria are no longer in place, the resource
> MUST be returned. A PI holder offering the *full block* to an interested party
> (for money or for free) obviously matches that provision. The resource needs
> to get returned to the pool.
>
> So, why would we want to bend into this direction or that direction to create
> a special case for Nr. 2 to circumvent the existing policy? Just because some
> money is seen on the horizon?
>
> Which gets me to the point of *not* supporting this proposal!
>
> Wilfried.
>


-- 
<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/20140424/93e6717b/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/20140424/93e6717b/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/20140424/93e6717b/attachment-0001.png>