[address-policy-wg] Staff participation in the IP market

Dear Ronald,

Thank you for your question. We have an internal code of conduct that applies to all staff and has a section on conflicts of interest. This covers these kinds of situations.

Violating the code of conduct could result in an employee being dismissed - this would obviously depend on the details of the case. Certainly, anything involving the transfer market and especially the use of inside or confidential information would be taken seriously.

Regarding whether there is a RIPE policy that covers this, it would be out of scope for community policy to determine internal staffing matters at the RIPE NCC.

Regards,

Felipe Victolla Silveira
Chief Operations Officer
RIPE NCC

> On 19 Aug 2019, at 01:07, Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
> 
> Please forgive me if this question is deemed inappropriate for this
> specific mailing list and working group.  This seems to be the most
> appropriate WG for my question.
> 
> I hope also that no one will take any offense nor any unstated
> implication from my question.  I intend to put this question also
> to the communities of each and every one of the five global
> Regional Internet Registries.  Nothing should be inferred from
> the fact that I am starting this process in the RIPE region.
> 
> My question is a simple one:  Are policies in place, within the RIPE
> region, which prohibit RIPE NCC staff members from participating in
> the current open market for IP addresses?
> 
> I do believe that everyone on this mailing list must be well and truly
> aware of that fact that the buying, selling, and trading of IPv4 addresses
> is nowadays a lucrative and growing business.  It should also be altogether
> clear and apparent that RIPE NCC staff could, if permitted to do so,
> leverage their significant and special ``insider'' knowledge to gain
> some advantage in this market, relative to other market participants.
> Thus, I wish to know simply if such participation is or is not currently
> prohibited or allowed by current applicable staff policy.
> 
> To reiterate, nothing at all should be inferred from my question.  I am
> most assuredly not making any allegations nor even any vague implications
> by my question.  This general question came up in an unrelated context,
> and now I just want to know whether or not each of the five regions have
> policies in place with respect to staff participation in the burgeoning
> IP address market.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> rfg
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190819/099a106b/attachment.html>