[address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

Hello!

Any good solution should be start taking effect in the future rather 
than retroactively, it should be fair and transparent,...

So I would like to propose two solutions to this dilemma:

a) All ipv4 resources received from the the waiting list requests 
submitted after 2022-01-01 are non-transferable and bound to the LIR 
that has requested the resource.

b) All ipv4 resources received from the the waiting list requests 
submitted after 2022-01-01 are non-transferable for the next 60 months.


Suggestion (b) would bring us more in line with how ARIN handles 
requests. Whereas #1 would favor small LIR's. Both solutions create 
almost 0 additional strain on the current processes.


kind regards

Sebastian Graf



This has the advantage of being "fair"

On 12/7/21 18:31, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 06:25:21PM +0100, denis walker wrote:
>> Many years ago I questioned why we ever invented a market for address
>> space 'that no one owns' when we had a perfectly good system of
>> allocating address space based on need and when no longer needed was
>> returned to the RIR to be re-allocated...for free. I was told 'don't
>> be silly, people will still sell the address space but not record the
>> transfers in the RIPE Database'. So the quality of the registry
>> diminishes. What is going to stop people selling these 'never to be
>> transferred' allocations and not recording the transfer in the RIPE
>> Database? I am sure some back door dealings can be arranged to keep
>> the LIRs active that have the allocations registered and obfuscate the
>> fee payments to confuse the RIPE NCC. Have companies developed some
>> sense of morality in recent years?
> If the LIR fee is still to be paid, this is commercially not very
> attractive - and as such, should stop the business model "open a LIR,
> get a /24 for <x> EUR, sell it for <5*x>" nicely.
>
> Note that we always acknowledged the need for a block of addresses
> to "change hands", by mergers & acquisition.  Having a formal transfer
> policy was basically just accepting that people would hide this in
> a company sale otherwise.
>
> My proposal is actually to disallow transfers *including* disallowing
> M&A transfers on these.  It MUST stay in the LIR it was requested by,
> and if the LIR closes, it MUST be returned.
>
> Buying a "company with the LIR" would still be possible, of course
> (and I do not see a way to disallow this, it's like MS trying to
> disallow selling used windows licenses), but "... and then transferring,
> and closing the LIR" would not.
>
> Gert Doering
>          -- NetMaster
>