This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Florian Fuessl
flo at degnet.de
Fri Dec 10 04:59:26 CET 2021
Personally, I think a mixed approach may help to decrease the pressure on the IPv4 waitlist. Actions should aim to make it unattractive for address brokers to open new LIR accounts to gain capital profit from IPv4 assets. It should not block reasonable legal actions on mergers, acquisitions, or other changes in the business structure of LIRs. Therefore instead of locking IPv4 resources from the IPv4 waitlist as non-transferable, it’s probably more effective to set up an inverse fee on these types of changes in the LIR business structure. For example: - leave the existing policy blocking these actions within the first 24 months. - after 24 months a one-time fee like ( 10 {years} - $years-of-membership ) * $current-annual-LIR-service-fee has to be paid to execute mergers and acquisitions including IPv4 resources. The gain of the policy change should be: - not to affect long time LIRs and reasonable resource usage - allow changes in the business structure of LIRs Having to pay a painful one-time service fee after the lock period makes it a risky deal for address brokers to incorporate new LIR startups to gain cheap IPv4 resources for later sale or mergers. But it is not going to block reasonable changes in business structure. Kind regards Florian Fuessl > Am 09.12.2021 um 08:56 schrieb Gert Doering <gert at space.net>: > > Signierter PGP-Teil > Hi, > > On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 12:26:35AM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> I sympathise with what you're trying to achieve here: you want to design >> a policy mechanism which prioritises new entrants who need IPv4 >> resources so that legitimate new businesses can operate successfullt. >> Problem is, none of the mechanisms that have been proposed so far on >> apwg are going to work, or else they are likely to have unexpected and >> potentially serious downstream consequences. > > So, if you were to decide, what would you do? > > Gert > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 > >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]