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

+1 support.

I would even agree with a 5-year restriction instead of 2.

Regards,
Carlos

On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Erik Bais 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
>
>
>