[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 decision at end of discussion period (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Gert Doering wrote:
>   Nick Hilliard - "because it will create underground and unregistered
>                    transfers of non-transferrable /22s"
> 
>     answered by Sander Steffan

I should have replied at the time because Sander's response was, in my
opinion, inadequate:

Sander Steffann wrote:
> Not transferring the resources means keeping the LIR running to hold
> them. If the LIR closes then the resources go back to the NCC and the
> unregistered new holder will end up with empty hands. Both the cost
> of keeping the LIR open (which will rise beyond the cost of "legally"
> buying space after a few years) and the risk for the receiver to lose
> their address space if the seller stops paying the NCC membership fee
> are strong incentives to just stop trading in ALLOCATED FINAL space.

This just means that the price stays higher, not that underground
transfers / rentals won't happen or become a problem.

> And M&A is still possible if people really want to move this address
> space around, and that will make sure the registration is updated.

This subverts the intention of 2016-03:

1. register company for £12 at the UK Companies Registration Office
2. open LIR in the name of this company
3. sell company to existing LIR and handle under M&A

Net cost difference: £12.

I.e. if you have it one way, the intent of the proposal is subverted;
if you have it the other, the charter for the RIPE database is violated.

Nick