[address-policy-wg] ripe-682 Transfer Policy Problems

Hi Arash

On Thu, 23 Dec 2021 at 03:26, Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc at parsun.com> wrote:
>
> There is a catch,
> 20 LIRs cannot be merged into a single LIR of the new parent company, unless it has passed 2years from the /24 allocation date.
> So after the merge, the new parent company still has to pay for 20 LIRs till the time /24 can be transferred,

No, that's one of the points I am making. There is a huge difference
between the 'intent' of policies and the actual wording. Consolidation
is not mentioned in any policy, only procedural documents of the RIPE
NCC. Consolidation is therefore neither allowed nor disallowed by
policy. The 24 month restriction is on 'transfers'. The policy defines
a transfer as moving resources to 'another member'. So there is no
time constraint on consolidation....according to policy.

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG


>
> Regards,
>
> Arash
>
> >>So merging a shell company with 20 LIRs, each with a /24, with the
> parent company with a single LIR, allows those 20 /24s to be
> registered with the single LIR of the parent company and closure of
> the 20 LIRs.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 2:01 AM denis walker <ripedenis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Colleagues
>>
>> The Transfer Policy ripe-682 is so vague you can drive a train through
>> the holes in it. I have some questions that I hope someone can answer
>> before Christmas as I would like to propose an amendment to this
>> policy in the new year.
>>
>> "Any legitimate resource holder is allowed to transfer"
>> What does 'legitimate' mean in this context? It is not defined in this
>> policy document. It is no use referring to a dictionary or even some
>> other policy document. It needs to be defined in this policy. If it
>> has no specific meaning in the context of this policy, then the word
>> should be removed.
>>
>> My understanding of a 'policy document' is that it is self contained
>> and consistent. None of the terms:
>> -RIPE NCC Member
>> -LIR
>> -Resource holder
>> are defined anywhere in the Transfer Policy or ripe-733, IPv4
>> Allocation... A policy may be dependent on another policy being in
>> place. You cannot transfer a resource unless it has been allocated.
>> You cannot allocate a resource unless there is a RIPE NCC Member and
>> an LIR. But you should not have to backtrack through a whole sequence
>> of documents to find out what a term in this policy means. This policy
>> can only work if people understand 'commonly accepted' definitions of
>> these terms. But that is open to interpretation and mis-understanding.
>> That could make legal enforcement of, for example, restrictions more
>> difficult to apply.
>>
>> [As a side issue I have just quickly read through a whole series of
>> documents and forms on becoming a RIPE NCC Member and getting
>> resources. In every document/form I found:
>> -Legal errors
>> -English grammar errors
>> -Procedural errors
>> -Webpage errors
>> The whole process is a complete mess and needs a serious Legal/Comms review.]
>>
>> I found the definition of a Member in one document but nowhere have I
>> found any definition of LIR. These terms are so fundamental to all
>> these policies, to not define them leaves a massive hole in their
>> meaning and authority. These terms seem to be so interchangeable from
>> one paragraph to the next. In some places the wrong term is used.
>>
>> ripe-733 says allocations are made to LIRs
>> ripe-682 says allocations are transferred to members
>> ripe-682 says transfer restrictions apply to resource holders
>>
>> Then we have this document
>> https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/transfer-of-ip-addresses-and-as-numbers
>> which talks about 'hodership', another term not defined.
>>
>> Then we have this document
>> https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/transfer-of-ip-addresses-and-as-numbers/transfers-in-the-ripe-ncc-service-region
>> that conflicts with the Transfer Policy.
>> It also refers to Members as organisations, again without any actual definition.
>>
>> The above document says:
>> "Exception: For transfers between multiple LIR accounts belonging to
>> the same organisation, also referred to as consolidations, the 24
>> months restriction will only apply once after the resources were
>> received from the RIPE NCC or from another organisation."
>>
>> This is NOT what the Transfer Policy says. The policy makes no mention
>> anywhere of consolidation. The only definition we have of a transfer
>> in any POLICY is this one line:
>> "Allocated resources may only be transferred to another RIPE NCC member."
>> This does not even make sense. A Member cannot 'hold' a resource.
>> Resources are held by Member LIRs. So if a resource is transferred to
>> a Member with 5 LIRs, which one receives it? Does it matter? Is it
>> whichever LIR the Member writes on the transfer request form?
>>
>> Now a consolidation is not a transfer. In the policy a transfer is
>> defined as moving a resource to 'another Member'. So consolidating a
>> resource by moving it from one LIR to another LIR of the same Member
>> is by policy definition, not a transfer. So consolidation is not
>> subject to Transfer Restrictions because it is not a transfer.
>>
>> So all the shell companies that have been set up this year to hoover
>> up the last /24s can now be merged with their parent company and then
>> all the /24s can be consolidated into one LIR. The other LIRs can then
>> be closed. Nothing in this policy document says a /24 allocation must
>> remain for 24 months with the LIR that it was allocated to. It says it
>> cannot be transferred, but mergers are allowed and consolidation is
>> not a transfer.
>>
>> This is even confirmed in a procedural document ripe-758, Transfer of
>> Internet Number Resources... (which doesn't appear to be policy)
>> "Internet number resources that are subject to transfer restrictions
>> imposed by the RIPE Policy "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies", and that
>> are transferred due to a change in a member's business structure, must
>> either remain registered with the original LIR account or be
>> registered with a new LIR account."
>>
>> So merging a shell company with 20 LIRs, each with a /24, with the
>> parent company with a single LIR, allows those 20 /24s to be
>> registered with the single LIR of the parent company and closure of
>> the 20 LIRs.
>>
>> Also ripe-758 introduces yet another term, parties, without any
>> definition or clarity.
>>
>> This whole transfer process is totally confused with contradictory,
>> inconsistent and poorly written documents and policies.
>>
>> cheers
>> denis
>> co-chair DB-WG
>>
>> --
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/