[address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

Hi Elvis,  

 

I oppose to your word choice that we are trying to sneak something in, with
this policy. 

 

As stated during the discussion at the AP, a change to the holdership will
to fall under the same restrictions as the transfers currently, that was
pointed out AND discussed since version 1. 

 

If a company is currently doing a M&A after that particular company has
become a (new) LIR since 6 months, it means it needs to keep the LIR open
for another 18 months.. 

For any M&A, the cost for a membership fee of 18 months will not be a deal
breaker for an actual business take-over … unless one is trying to game the
system.  

 

To give an indication,  the damage of a diner with 7 people at the MASH
Penthouse at the RIPE72 venue can be more expensive ...  

 

Thanks for the feedback. 

 

Regards,

Erik Bais 

 

Van: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Namens
Elvis Daniel Velea
Verzonden: woensdag 25 mei 2016 10:28
Aan: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

 

Dears,

as mentioned during the policy session, I am opposing to this (version of)
the policy proposal.

While I was sure that I did voice this concern over the mailing list, I can
not find the e-mail now. But I am sure I did voice this concern and the
opposition at previous RIPE Meeting(s).
As long as this proposal adds the 2 years holding period of scarce resources
moved through M&As (which are 'regulated' through a RIPE NCC procedure) I
will oppose to it. 

I am not going to go into examples wars of why some company would want to
transfer/move/merge/etc.. resources within a 2 years period. While I agree
that transfers should have a holding (or call it anti-flip) period and I
even proposed 2015-01 (which is now part of policy), I do not agree that we
should include M&As in the same bucket.

If a new version of this policy proposal would be only about transfers of IP
addresses, and not try to sneak in M&As into the same document, I would
agree with it.

my 2 cents,
elvis

On 5/25/16 9:52 AM, Remco van Mook wrote:

 
Dear all,
 
as just mentioned during the address policy session, I'm withdrawing my
objection to 2015-04. While I do think a discussion about policy structure
still needs to be held, I don't think it should hold up this proposal any
longer. This can be fixed after adoption - as long as we're aware.
 
I do maintain my suggestion to put references in place where chapters about
transfers are removed from other sections of policy.
 
Kind regards,
 
Remco

 

-- 


 <http://v4escrow.net> 

 


Elvis Daniel Velea


Chief Executive Officer


E-mail: elvis at V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis at V4Escrow.net> 
Mobile: +1 (702) 970 0921


Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in:




 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160530/f765908d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5043 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160530/f765908d/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 193 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160530/f765908d/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 12287 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160530/f765908d/attachment-0002.png>