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

Agree with Sascha. As with the Allocated PI, in this situation RIPE
community would like to impose some policies which are against the most
common business practices. It is not efficient as it can at any time be
attacked in any civilized justice system. Can anyone bring out some data on
the "huge" abuse that took/takes place ? Let's not stop a supposedly abuse
by adopting abusive policies.

Ciprian

On Friday, October 21, 2016, Sascha Luck [ml] <apwg at c4inet.net> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161021/236b8733/attachment.html>