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

Hi,

 

Feel free to adjust the policy in a new policy proposal, if you think it is vital for the future. 

 

As the author of this policy I’m not going to include it in this one. 

 

The transfer statistics isn’t a contest between brokers/facilitators or a place for advertising in my opinion. 

 

But don’t let my opinion on that keep you from writing your own policy proposal. 

 

Regards,

Erik Bais 

 

Van: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Namens Ciprian Nica
Verzonden: zondag 23 oktober 2016 16:40
Aan: Erik Bais <ebais at a2b-internet.com>
CC: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

 

Hi,



On Sunday, October 23, 2016, Erik Bais <ebais at a2b-internet.com <mailto:ebais at a2b-internet.com> > wrote:

Hi Ciprian,

> On Monday, October 17, 2016, Ciprian Nica <office at ip-broker.uk <javascript:;> > wrote:
> Hi,

> I think it would be useful to list on the statistics also the broker that facilitated the transfer.

When we made the parts that needed to be published in the transfer statistics, that have crossed my mind, but I failed to see what the benefit is for the community.

 

The benefit would be that the community can make an idea about whether a broker's info can be reliable or not. There are brokers that never brokered a transaction.

 

I can understand from your point why you would ask this, but I'm not going to take this suggestion in this policy.

I am also a member of this community, besides being your competitor and although you wouldn't like people to see that I've brokered the most transfers, it's quite possible you would broker more transfers than me in the future. We all do our jobs good and my proposal is not just for advertising, I really think people would like to see it.

 

 

The transfers are between offering and receiving parties.. the facilitators are not a part in this process, except in the financial agreements.
Price is also not mentioned or what the BGP routing vendor is that is used for the new prefix..

I don't know about other brokers but I'm not getting my commission just for puttig 2 parties at the table. We are part of the process, we assist both seller and buyer and we follow every step of the transaction, although we're not allowed by NCC to communicate on behalf of our customers.

 

On the topic of the netname : if you want the netname to be changed, you can open a ticket with the Hostmaster during the transfer to make that happen. No need to put that in policy.



 

I think the idea would be to have this by default and not request it every time. I also think that at least the law enforcement agencies (from my past cooperation with them in the past) would benefit of this clarification.

 

Ciprian

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161023/31d51967/attachment.html>