[address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 02:51:16PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 03:26:34PM +0200, Piotr Strzyzewski via address-policy-wg wrote:
>>>
>>> Except when those other policies detract from the main one. If we can't maintain an accurate registry, then what's the point?
>>
>> IMHO, this is not the case here. Let's try not to fall in the false
>> dilemma here.
>
> But it is the case... AFAICT, the only "sanction" a RIR has
> available for any party trading in legacy resources (and refusing
> to comply with orders to "hand them over") is to refuse
> to provide registry service for those. That won't stop
> transfers but will lead to those resources become unregistered
> or, even worse, incorrectly registered.

Argument against has been already mentioned by Mike Burns. You can
find it here:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2019-July/012962.html

>>This situation pertains to all transfers, and sometimes a 10 year
lease is just a 10 year lease, when it's paid monthly. But as for
disguising legacy sales by doing them in this manner, you are quite
mistaken. Nobody is spending $20 per address and then not having his
ownership recorded in Whois. Or virtually nobody. Nobody I know, and I
have done over 750 transfers beginning in the early 2000s.  If the buyer
doesn't get recorded, there is nothing but fighting in court to prevent
the subsequent re-sale of the block by the registrant. No buyer wants to
risk waking up to find "his" block is now registered to somebody else in
Whois, and the original registrant absconded with the money and
disappeared.<<

Piotr

-- 
Piotr Strzyżewski
Silesian University of Technology, Computer Centre
Gliwice, Poland