[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Hi!

Fully support your arguments.

09.06.2015, 13:42, "Storch Matei" <matei at profisol.ro>:
> Hi,
>
> I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of view
> regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my understanding
> that this policy will not make a real difference from the RIPE NCC's point
> of view, and that if the rate of requesting new /22s remains the same, the
> pool of available Ipv4 resources will last more than 5 years from now -
> which from my point of view is a long time.
>
> Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs because
> it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be lowered.
> Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros setup
> fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and it is in the
> current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in.
>
> Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should be
> enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. Otherwise,
> from my point of view, it would be a "change of the rules during the game"
> and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok.
>
> Thank you,
> Matei Storch
> [F]: General Manager
> [M]: +40728.555.004
> [E]: matei at profisol.ro
> [C]: Profisol Telecom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On
> Behalf Of Garry Glendown
> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 13:04
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis
> Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
>
> Guten Tag,
>>  I opposite this proposal.
>>
>>  It only will increase the price of the block, RIPE won't be get
>>  payment from this scheme and will increase the price of membership
>
> I don't see why this proposal causes a price increase for legitimate LIRs
> that plan on operating instead of just existing for the cause of receiving a
> /22 then transfer to another LIR ...
>
> Personally, I believe the proposal (or a later extension of the policy)
> should also limit the intake of /22 from the last /8 on the receiving end -
> while I do understand that for any late entry into the Internet market the
> limitation of getting around with just one /22 is causing a certain degree
> of hardship, it's still something that should not be relieved just by
> throwing money at it, while new companies with even later entry into the
> market end up without any v4 addresses at all due to hoarders ... so
> limiting transfer-in to something like 3x /22 over the period of 5 years
> (for example) could make it even more expensive (albeit, again, would not
> completely rule out hoarding)
>
> Anyway, as a first step, I support 2015-01 ...
>
> Regards, Garry
>
> --
>
> Garry Glendown * Professional Services & Solutions
>
> NETHINKS GmbH | Bahnhofstraße 16 | 36037 Fulda T +49 661 25 000 0 | F +49
> 661 25 000 49 | garry.glendown at nethinks.com
> Geschäftsführer: Uwe Bergmann
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Garry Glendown | AG Fulda HRB 2546 PGP
> Fingerprint: B1CF 4952 F6EB E060 8A10 B957 700E F97F B412 DD32

-- 
With best regards, Vladimir Andreev
General director, QuickSoft LLC
Tel: +7 903 1750503