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

Hi,
We @ as198988 support the proposal ...
Im going to assume for the sake of arguement  that in these discussions
that all people contributing are either Mere mortal lir tech / admin
contacts  like me  or well established experts contributing to policy for
years or academics ... that should tackle the hire a croud... problem..

I think it is important that a pool of /22s is maintained for as long as
possible to allow genuine internet startups deploy ipv6 infrastructure with
an ability to create backward compatible translation systems

+1 mofos
 On 9 Jun 2015 16:58, "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Ciprian Nica wrote:
>
>  When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to
>> sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were
>> rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked
>> about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in
>> use and they can't give up on it.
>>
>
> Perhaps they could when they saw how much money they could get for it. If
> it cost 5M GBP (I just made that figure up) to move away from the address
> space and they can get more money selling it, then it makes sense to do so.
> If they were told to just hand it back without compensation, then this
> wouldn't happen, because they're not going to pay 5M GBP out of the
> goodness of their heart to give addresses away.
>
>  Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking
>> advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence
>> and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community,
>> that would be a real benefit.
>>
>
> Most likely most of these were actually using at least part of this space,
> and the only reason they handed it back was because they could pay X amount
> of money for doing the work, and get X+Y money back from selling.
>
> Let's say an organization sits on a legacy /8. They might not use more
> than 30% of this actually, but it's really fragmented, so cleaning it up
> takes quite a lot of work. It's a lot of night time maintenance, changing
> server addresses, handling resulting problems etc. If they can get 15M EUR
> for this space over time, they can use some of that money to pay people do
> do the work needed to free it up. Yes, they're making a profit out of a
> resource that was handed to them back in the days for none or very little
> money, but they followed the rules back then. Now, they're sitting on this
> resource and is worth money if they can free it up. This fact creates a
> business case to do work and free it up and sell it. If you told them they
> need to hand it back without compensation, that business case goes away. So
> it's no option to try to squeeze blood from that stone for free.
>
> Now, with the last-/8 policy, we're trying to subsidize and simplify for
> new entrants into the market and help them establish business. We changed
> the rules, because the resource was running out, but we're trying to ease
> the pain for the new/small guy. What we're now trying to do is make it a
> little less appealing to take this subsidized thing and sell it on the
> market, while not making it harder for the actual people we're trying to
> help.
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150610/74fa72e7/attachment.html>