[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Nick,

Not speaking in favour or against this proposal, just thinking about the possible effects:

> I'm against this because it conflicts with the core purpose of the RIPE
> registry, which is to ensure accurate registration of resources.
> Formally banning transfers will not stop transfers; it will only stop
> those transfers from being registered which will lead to inaccurate
> registry information.

I had the same feeling in the beginning, but after thinking about it a bit more I am not so sure anymore.

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.

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.

Cheers,
Sander

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160616/5adfb2b4/attachment.sig>