[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Remco,

As you may know, the "multiple LIRs" is for the moment least expensive
way of getting around the "one /22" restriction. Combined withe the
removal of "need checking", this very much looks like selling /22 to
anybody willing to pay a sign-up and at least one year of membership.

This may not have been intentional, but it looks to me as a first step
to "turning commercial".

With your proposal, while the idea was to discourage the "multiple LIR"
practice, I have very serious doubts that it will happen this way. Given
the current market price (which is only the most important show-stopper,
but not the only one), with your proposal it would take about 5 years of
membership to get at a similar level. With all that money going to the
NCC. IF the NCC really whishes to keep its not-for-profit status, this
will result in reduced membership, one reduced membership for older
LIRs, but several memberships for the LIRs in "desperate need" (mostly
small new ones).

And of course, it would look more like a business of "leasing
IPv4 blocks".

... and you DO have a NCC hat.

I hope it does clarify my previous e-mail.

On Wed, May 18, 2016, at 00:24, Remco van Mook wrote:
>
> Radu-Adrian, can you please clarify and substantiate this part of your
> response?
>
> > This is basically a first (err, or is it a second) step to
> > transforming RIPE NCC to a profitable "for profit" company. And if
> > it will not be RIPE NCC getting the profits, it will be the "old
> > LIRs" getting all the benefits (one single membership fee instead of
> > several). I can see a hat there....

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs