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

Hi Sander,

here I am, thank you for your reply

Il 17/06/2016 23:48, Sander Steffann ha scritto:
> Hi Riccardo,
>
>> I am strongly against to every proposal that higher the disvlaantage to already disvantaged new and future pyers (LIRs after 09/2012)
> You keep bringing that up, but how is preventing those newer LIRs from selling their addresses in any way disadvantaging them? On one hand you keep saying new LIRs don't get enough address space, and on the other hand you're saying that it is bad that they can't sell their space. Which one is it?
I am basically saying that the rule of the game are already there and 
working quite well.
And since I am an afterlife (14/09/2015) LIR this would put us in an 
even worste condition to make work our small business.

>
> This proposal doesn't prevent new LIRs from buying address space. And if they want to buy /22s from other newer LIRs they can as easily (and cheaper) open their own second LIR. The RIPE NCC membership explicitly allowed that during the last AGM.
>
> Two scenarios:
>
> One
> - Someone opens up an LIR
> - They get their /22 (free)
> - They sell it off to another LIR for a profit
>
> Two
> - That other LIR opens up a second LIR
> - They get their /22 (free)
> - They merge that new LIR with their old LIR using M&A
>
> This policy proposal is stopping scenario One but not scenario Two. The previous version of the proposal did, but as that didn't get any support this version removed that restriction.
>
> So what is this proposal blocking for new LIRs? Not buying space, not opening up a second LIR and getting that /22 from RIPE NCC. It only limits those LIRs from *selling* their /22 for profit.
>
> I'm sorry, but if that is your business model then you are exactly the kind of business that this proposal is trying to stop. The IPv4 allocation policy has very few requirements, and one of them is that the LIR has to use it for assign addresses from. If the intention is to sell those addresses then you are already in violation of the current policy. That is *NOT* why you were given that /22 in the first place.

>
> And as far as judging consensus goes, arguments that boil down to "I am currently violating the policy by requesting my /22 for the wrong reasons, and this proposal is stopping me from doing that" will not be taken into account. There are plenty of other arguments that need to be discussed, like the potential impact on the accuracy of the registry that Nick brought up. But there is too much FUD and noise in this discussion.
Sorry Sander, but I think you are kidding at this point. Already 
explained my business model and has no primary scope in IP selling, if 
it was so I would qualify myself as an IP Broker. I am not.
Please don't treat me like a baby. Problems are slightly different:
You know is very easy to keep opened a zero cost company in many 
countries that can hold the LIR and everyone with a piece of brain can 
easily make private contract to title the assignements to ends customers 
or other LIRs for black money.
This is called black market and is really easy to implement with 2016-03 
around.
I argued about the fairness of the treatement of new LIRs but also 
pointed out practical problems like databases consistence and black market.
With 2016-03 once stockpiled the IPs will stuck there and the easiest 
method to speculate on those IPs is black market.
Do you think speculators didn't tought about it?
Is exacly the same thing will happen all over the world  if you say no 
more transfert will be approved.
Can even higher dramattically market price and speculators will be 
really really happy.
I will not be surprised if will make appear black market brokers as well.

Please you want someone else goes this way not me.
Please look ar RIPE IPv6 course attended list, RIPE meetings... and my 
IP transit contracts, presence of my AS number in NAMEX, MIX and AMS-IS 
and my space annouced and in use

I am still convinced the only way to stop abusing is to use the current 
policy and check out the assignements and enforce audit procedure.
>
> I don't mind if you send opposing arguments, but as I have said before I do care about the quality of the discussion. If you respond this policy in its current form then I'd like to see good argumentation with concrete examples of issues, not some hand-waving like "this is disadvantaging new LIRs" without any explanation of how that exactly would work. Then we have something to discuss that people can respond to. Consensus building works by explaining the issues and people trying to address them. Pretend I'm stupid and spell it out for me :)
I am strongly against 2016-03 because will give us a flowering black 
market zero transparency and no database consistence.
enough quality?

>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>
cheers and regards
Riccardo

-- 

Ing. Riccardo Gori
e-mail: rgori at wirem.net
Mobile:  +39 339 8925947
Mobile:  +34 602 009 437
Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943

WIREM Fiber Revolution
Net-IT s.r.l.
Via Cesare Montanari, 2
47521 Cesena (FC)
Tel +39 0547 1955485
Fax +39 0547 1950285

--------------------------------------------------------------------
	CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re-
plying to info at wirem.net
         Thank you
WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160618/a3ade5c3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logoWirem_4cm_conR.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 41774 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160618/a3ade5c3/attachment.jpg>