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

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <
ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:

> 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).
>
>
I don't find your response clarifying in the least.

You seem to be confused about what constitutes non-profit and what
constitutes for-profit or "commercial". Making _a_ profit does not
automatically make you a for-profit/commercial enterprise.
-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160522/567669e8/attachment.html>