This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
David Freedman
david.freedman at uk.clara.net
Mon May 11 17:15:57 CEST 2015
Hi Marco, All, I'd just like Clarity on what could be some conflicting points in the impact analysis section of this document: It starts out with: "A. RIPE NCC's Understanding of the Proposed Policy -> The proposed policy would not affect existing procedures for mergers and acquisitions. The transfers of resources related to ownership changes of networks would remain possible at any time. The process of becoming a RIPE NCC member would not be impacted.: It then continues to say: "C. Impact of Policy on RIPE NCC Operations/Services -> Billing/Finance Department -> A RIPE NCC Executive Board resolution on 20 March 2015 requires that LIRs pay one full annual service fee before commencement of a merger, transfer or closure procedure. The proposed policy change would require LIRs to keep their IPv4 allocation for at least 24 months before it could be transferred and pay the annual fee during this time" So, in the case of a merger related to ownership (I.e Company A acquires Company B) and Company B has one of these /22 allocations, then Company A has to wait for 24 months (and pay for two membership cycles) before being allowed to merge this in to their LIR? or did I misunderstand? Also, since I see no mention of this being retrospective in the proposal, I take it, that it will only apply to /22 allocations made from the date this proposal is accepted? and not before? Dave.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]