[address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

> Just register each company with different but bogus identities. CH does
not check this information. Which by implication would make it hard for the
NCC to check.

They already identify and take note of the director / authorized
representative who does the application with the RIPE NCC. It wouldn't seem
hard to keep track and put it to measure.

Nothing is bullet-proof. That is something we just have to accept, and I
believe is mentioned already multiple times in this thread alone. That does
not mean trivial options shall simply be disqualified for that sole matter.
That it isn't 100% effective, does not mean that it does not filter out at
least some of the scum. If we can at least filter the most ruthless, that
might just free up enough IPv4 space to keep enough supply to feed new
entrants.

We should not push at trying to make it as hard as possible for new
entrants to join, rather push at enforcing guidelines to make sure it is
not abused (at least not to a certain extent). It is unjustifiable to
refuse a startup to hold 2x /24 if they can justify a use technically, when
more established entities within our association hold more than a trifold
of such an allocation. Please: encourage new entrepreneurship, do not crush
them 'to the ground'.

Also: how to deal with some in the addressing-wg chair being active in
'hoarding' allocations? It seems to me that said (co-)chair would have to
recuse himself from any involvement in this matter, as it indirectly is
influenced by his business in mind? After all, if said (co-)chair can make
it harder for new entrants to obtain IPv4 space, that inherently means his
brokering business can thrive from a lack of supply he can (in)directly
cause?

Regards,
Rick

On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 3:40 PM Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On 8 Dec 2021, at 14:12, Rick Bakker <rick at bakker-it.eu> wrote:
> >
> > (e.g. just look at "Network Space Provider <no.> LTD" in the British
> company register). All are/were held by a single UBO.
>
> Companies House (the UK register of companies) says all of them were
> dissolved on Nov 16th - about three weeks ago. This news may have some
> bearing on whatever address resources were or weren’t obtained by those now
> dead firms.
>
> BTW if these firms had a single ultimate beneficial owner, it would have
> been trivial to obscure that fact. Just register each company with
> different but bogus identities. CH does not check this information. Which
> by implication would make it hard for the NCC to check.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20211208/a4fa496b/attachment.html>