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

Hi Erik,

On 5/30/16 1:45 AM, Erik Bais wrote:
>
> 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.
>
that was my mistake, I was sure I had pointed it out in an older 
e-mail.. can't find it so it probably never made it to the list and was 
in draft status forever :)
>
> 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.
>
well, this is what I was opposing to. However, after further discussions 
offline, I no longer think this is quite such a bad idea. So, I no 
longer oppose.
>
> To give an indication,  the damage of a diner with 7 people at the 
> MASH Penthouse at the RIPE72 venue can be more expensive ...
>
you never invited me there... I would've wanted to see the proof.
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
so, +1 to the proposal.

cheers,
elvis
>
> 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/20160530/851c69b0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 5043 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160530/851c69b0/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 193 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160530/851c69b0/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 12287 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160530/851c69b0/attachment-0002.png>