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

Hi, everybody.

As we see some people decided to ignore others who want to tell their opposition opinion and welcome those, who agree. I thought the RIPE NCC is community, expressing all people position. But I was wrong.

Could you explain how do resellers abuse the system? Why don't you return unused allocations, which are more than all /8?

You may ask to delete me from this mail list, but it will confirm my words.

27.04.2015, 11:31, "Elvis Daniel Velea" <elvis at v4escrow.net>:
> 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
>
> --
>
> Elvis Daniel Velea
>
> Chief Executive Officer
>
> Email: 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.

-- 
Kind regards,
Petr Umelov