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

Hello everyone,

in a previous message I did say that I expected to see a few flying 
tomatoes towards me, just because I am a broker of IP addresses when 
coming up with this proposal.
However, the low level of personal attacks I have seen on this mailing 
list in the past few weeks have made me wonder how pathetic some people 
can actually be...

I would like to thank everyone that defended me on the mailing list, 
people that do understand why I have sent in this policy proposal, 
people that know me since I first joined this community more than 10 
years ago. I would also like to thank the chairs for stepping in to stop 
the pathetic attacks to my person and to my business.

Because some have questioned why I have sent in this request, I would 
like to clarify some things:

1. IPv4 Brokers do not make their money from the /22s they broker. 
Actually, we sometimes broker /22s (or smaller prefixes) even if we lose 
money just to help a customer. We normally make a commission from the 
total transaction price and brokering anything below a /21 means (most 
of the times) working for free or for a loss. My business has nothing to 
do with this policy proposal. Actually, if I would care for my business 
and for making a profit from anything, I should oppose to such a 
proposal. This policy proposal has been sent because for more than 7 
years I have worked at the RIPE NCC and they have injected me with some 
kind of serum that 'forces' me to do good deeds for the community and 
for the well being of the Internet :-)

2. This policy proposal has been made after the lengthy discussion at 
the RIPE Meeting in London and after noticing that the RIPE NCC keeps 
presenting to the AP-WG that the 'last /8 policy' is being abused by a 
handful of people. In a previous message I have already pointed to the 
recordings of those discussions and Andrea's presentation.

3. This policy proposal does not attempt to fix the 'bug' that allows a 
company/person to open multiple LIRs and receive multiple /22s (by way 
of merger). This bug exists and is well know. It was even mentioned in 
the rationale and the impact analysis of '2010-02 - the last /8 policy 
proposal' [1].

4. This policy proposal attempts to fix the problem raised by the RIPE 
NCC where a company/person opens an LIR, receives a /22, transfers the 
/22 and restarts the process, thus requesting the /22 with the only 
purpose to 'transfer' it. The usage of the /22s should be restricted - 
as the 'last /8 policy proposal aimed' - to the companies that need a 
bit of IP addresses to operate in a 'still predominant' IPv4 world. I 
have seen cases where the /22 from the last /8 has been received and 
transferred in the same day. This 'business style' not only violates the 
RIPE Policies and the spirit of the 'last /8 policy proposal' [1] but 
also shows that some only want to make money by abusing the system. This 
must stop and that is why this policy proposal was sent in.

5. I am upset to see that a co-national (mr Gabriel Voitis from Infinity 
Telecom) has decided to publicly attack me on this mailing list and I 
have decided to basically ignore all of his messages, I will not respond 
to his pathetic attacks. I believe that a company founded in 2011 (with 
0 employees since) should just be ignored. Actually, I would like to ask 
the Chair of the WG to request the removal of Mr Gabriel Voitis (or 
anyone else that lowers himself at that level) from the mailing list if 
he continues with his personal attacks towards me or towards my business.

6. I am also awaiting Marco's Impact Analysis to discuss this policy 
proposal further. This will be my last message before the Impact 
Analysis is published.

7. Lastly, I welcome the discussion about the size of the allocation 
from the last /8. I have actually asked Gert to give us a few minutes 
during the AP-WG meeting in Amsterdam to discuss further. Radu, I will 
try to get in contact with you as I like most of the ideas you have sent 
to this mailing list and maybe we can come up with a nice presentation 
for RIPE70.

Kind regards,
Elvis

[1] https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2010-02
-- 
<http://v4escrow.net> 	


  Elvis Daniel Velea


    Chief Executive Officer

Email: elvis at V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis at v4escrow.net>
US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914
EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 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/20150427/09ed6a81/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/20150427/09ed6a81/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/20150427/09ed6a81/attachment-0001.png>