[address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:10:59PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
> So what is the benefit for Elvis, who is the broker?
> 
> If he found 2 sides who make the transfer he will lose the part of clients.
> If this proposal doesn't affect him all resellers will be brokers.

If you read the minutes of the APWG meeting at the previous RIPE meeting,
you can see that the issue was brought up by the RIPE NCC.  The group
in the room decided that it would be good to do something about it, and
Elvis volunteered to write up something formal to get the discussion going.

It's not like Elvis made this up to further his business.

(And, as a call for order: further personal attacks on the personal
integrity of a proposer will not help bring forward your argument.  If 
you do not like a proposal, bring forth factual arguments that people
can answer - personal attacks will just disqualify your voice when the
chairs go about judging consensus)

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150423/483b38d4/attachment.sig>