[address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

What you say could be expressed (again it's a metaphor) like this:

Someone (probably) has noticed abuse from some people in the past. Let's
throw everybody in jail and this way we'll make sure there is no abuse. I
would go with the let's do a better job in identifying abuse and not
allowing it to happen.

As for the takeovers, it's not that I wouldn't get into details. My
previous employer has acuired probably over 100 other companies. Every case
was particular and some took years to integrate. You can not sell the IPs
before integrating their network.

In all the situations, even when we know there was an agreement for
acquisition of company X, it wasn't absorbed overnight. The process is
complex and involves approvals from various authorities, integration of the
network, migration of customers and in the end you can draw the line and
mark as unused the as number, IPs, computers, etc.

Ciprian

On Friday, October 21, 2016, Havard Eidnes <he at uninett.no> wrote:

> > Since there were many discussions and yes, I've made the mistake to write
> > in a different topic about the 2015-04, I want to state clearly that I
> > oppose this policy.
> >
> > Again, if it would do what it's goal is, then it would be perfect. But it
> > doesn't. It brings up important changes which are commented by people
> with
> > no experience in mergers and acquisitions.
> >
> > While working for RCS&RDS I have seen many takovers and acquisitions and
> I
> > know how the process goes. It's not always easy and definitely
> complicated.
>
> This basically says "I know this process, you don't, I won't tell
> you the details, instead trust me!"
>
> I would say that I would completely understand if this doesn't
> carry any weight with the majority of the participants here, and
> is probably unlikely to sway opinion in your favour.
>
> > Why do we need to put more stones in front of the wagon? An acquisition
> is
> > not just signing a transfer agreement. For regular transfers it's ok to
> > have a 24 months hold period, but asimilating a regular transfer with a
> > company acquisition is wrong.  Buying a company needs to be documented
> with
> > official, state issued, documents.  That is if I prove that I legally
> > acquired a company, why would you think that it's something fishy and the
> > purpose was to hide a simple transfer of IPs?  The two are nowhere near
> to
> > be compared. The acquisition process takes time and money which
> represents
> > already enough reasons not to mask a transfer this way.
>
> My guess: because there is a widespread perception (right or wrong)
> that the mergers and aquisitions procedure has been abused (in the
> past?) to violate the intention of the "last /8" policy.  The ease
> with which companies can be formed in some jurisdictions does not
> provide what's seen as a sufficient push-back against abusing this
> avenue of forming companies solely for the purpose of getting a /22
> out of the last /8 with the (not so well hidden) intention of simply
> merging this company with another once the resource has been issued,
> and then transferring the resource out of the merged company.
>
> Regards,
>
> - Håvard
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161021/1fd37421/attachment.html>