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

You would do well to take some lessons in debate culture
yourself. You're -not even too veiledly- accusing another member
of abuse, something we have heard altogether too much of lately.

As for 2015-04, I oppose it as it tries yet again to bring M&A
under policy regulation (s. 2.2) which the community has no
business doing. Further, I am fundamentally opposed to the tactic
of including the unpalatable with the desirable.  I would support
2015-04 if it restricted itself to collating transfer policy in
one document without imposing further restrictions.

rgds,
Sascha Luck

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:45:01PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote:
>> What you say could be expressed (again it's a metaphor) like
>> this:
>
>If you're interested in swaying the opinion in your favour you
>would do well by avoiding arguing by using metaphors or colurful
>paraphrasing, and instead argue the individual items you
>apparently so very much disagree with.
>
>> 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.
>
>You conveniently side-stepped answering the case I described.
>Note that I wrote "*solely* for the purpose of of getting a
>/22...".  In that case there would be no customers to move or
>networks to merge.  I would say it is incumbent upon you to
>justify that we should keep this loophole as wide as a truck in
>the policy.
>
>The 24-month holding period puts a damper on this avenue of
>abuse against the intention of the last /8 policy, and would put
>a little bit more longevity into the availability of the
>resources under that policy.  It may be that this diminishes
>your company's prospects of near-future income, to which I would
>say that basing your buisness on the abuse of something which is
>perceived as a common resource is perhaps not worthy of so much
>sympathy?
>
>Regards,
>
>- Håvard
>