[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Hello all,

I also support the proposal.
Although it won't stop speculation, it will at least discourage it.
I'd also support an even longer waiting period.

I don't believe anyone who seriously starts a business will have a problem
with such "limitation".
Of course we'll have to consider the issue that Elvis mentioned earlier,
about M&A

Regards
George

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Erik Bais <ebais at a2b-internet.com> wrote:

> Having read the emails in this discussion I think that we are moving away
> from the policy at hand ...
>
> This policy is not about reverting the final /8 policy ...
>
> The discussion is amusing to read and I like ( mind I say .. Love  ? ! ) to
> read what the different opinions are in the community about moving faster
> or
> reverting at all..
> The policy is about closing a gap in the current procedure .. which we all
> see is being abused against the original intent of the stated policy ...
>
> The reasoning for reservation of the /22's in the final /8 is for new LIR's
> and current LIR's, to be able to get into the market and do v4 to v6 CGNAT
> or something alike .. or at least get some kind of startup going on some IP
> space ...  That was the original intent ..
>
> Currently what I see ( And with that, I'm sure that Elvis agrees with me..
> )
> as a broker you see people offering that /22 to the market in order to make
> a quick buck.
> I don't mind .. An IPv4 resource is an IPv4 resource .. a transaction is a
> transaction .... however this is against the original intent of the policy
> ...
>
> We have a 24 month waiting period for IPv4 space after being transferred,
> to
> avoid 'stock piling' or to speculation .. What was not foreseen at that
> time, is that new allocations should also fall under that same 24 month
> waiting period ...
>
> This policy is to close the flipping of the /22´s to the market .. Even
> setting up new LIR's and flipping the /22's and closing the LIR's again ...
> By having the /22's fall under the same 24 month waiting period, it will
> make it more expensive for $parties to flip those resources ... Yes you
> will
> still make money, but they have to hold the investment for 24 months at
> least ..
> The profit they can/will make is gone for 2 years .. Now that might not
> stop
> all speculation, but it will stop the majority of the people with the idea
> of how to get rich quick, or at least make a quick buck ..
>
> I think that we should get this policy change in place and not because it
> will drive more people to the actual broker market ... Because the real IP
> brokers with actual inventory, can really do without these small prefixes
> in
> the sales sheets for inventory ..
>
> The idea to close this, is because that flipping of the /22's of the final
> /8 goes against the intent of the initial policy.
>
> Having said that, it is a Support +1 from me on this.
>
> Regards,
> Erik Bais
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150220/6538507c/attachment.html>