<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear David, everyone,<br>
<br>
(sorry for the top-posting, it's going to be my conclusion in this
thread)<br>
<br>
what you are suggesting is to say... you want to sell your PI, pay
sign-up fee and one year membership to the RIPE NCC and then you
can sell/transfer it and close shop. This is already possible
today...<br>
<br>
I don't think your proposed way of action would be a better
alternative than the current policy proposal, it would just
include an additional hop preventing data accuracy. You can talk
about contracts as much as you want, these will never be enforced,
nobody has the manpower and/or the tools to enforce them. Not the
LIR and not even the RIPE NCC.<br>
<br>
The world is moving towards removing all the limitations imposed
by policy. I don't think adding your suggested limitation will
help the development of IPv4 policies.<br>
<br>
my 2 cents,<br>
Elvis<br>
<br>
PS: I fully understand your reasoning and in a perfect world, all
the IPs not needed would return to the RIPE NCC for re-allocation.
Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world :(<br>
<br>
On 18/04/14 02:17, David Monosov wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:53506F0F.5080408@futureinquestion.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear address-policy-wg, Elvis,
On 04/18/2014 12:59 AM, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi David,
On 17/04/14 22:02, David Monosov wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Dear address-policy-wg,
With such a policy in place, IP address broker needs to offers potential IP
space buyers only a marginally lower price than the cost of being a LIR for the
expected duration of use of the IPv4 PI space in question (and requesting this
IP space from the last /8 or realizing an inter-LIR PA transfer) in order to
create a perverse incentive for IPv4 address buyers to line the pockets of IP
address brokers instead of stepping up and becoming members of the RIPE NCC.
This policy appears to fail the most basic economic incentive test, and will in
practice create a secondary and desirable 'asset class' from which IP transfer
brokers benefit considerably more than the community as a whole.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">There is already a market of IP addresses. Nobody will care about the color of
the IP addresses once they will really need those numbers.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I concur, which is why I don't see why any IP address buyer would have a problem
with registering as a LIR and becoming part of the RIPE NCC with all that
entails before receiving IPv4 space of any color.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">To deconstruct the arguments which purportedly support this proposal:
a) "Currently the policy for PA and PI space isn�t the same and people don�t
understand the difference between the various types of IP Space."
Ignoring that this is a superfluous argument which goes in the face of nearly
two decades of policy, this appears to argue that letting PI space be sold would
somehow eliminate this distinction.
This, of course, is disingenuous. If this is indeed the goal, a policy should be
introduced to allow PI space to be converted into PA space and assigned to a LIR
- this will enable its "transferability" and eliminate many of the concerns
raised above by ensuring that all holders of "transferred" IPv4 space are first
rate LIRs who contribute financially toward the operation of the RIPE NCC and
fall under all obligations imposed on such.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Are you saying that every holder of PI space should become an LIR before they
could transfer it?
Why would they pay �3600 (1600 for the yearly membership and 2000 for the
sign-up fee) to the RIPE NCC when they could just do it in a contract?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
That is exactly what I am suggesting.
Since getting new IPv4 PI space from the RIPE NCC is no longer possible, and
since those IPv4 PI addresses were assigned specifically with the condition that
they are used by a specific end user for numbering a specific infrastructure
which they declared at the time of the request - there is no reason why existing
IPv4 PI space assignees would suddenly find themselves in the possession of a
valuable commodity to dispose of as they please when it is no longer of use to
them in the original capacity of the assignment.
There is no "just do it in a contract", this is explicitly against the terms set
forth by both the PI assignment policies, and by the End User contract which
every end user has signed. PI space transferred in this manner is in violation
of the contract and is subject to revocation. There may be some lack of policing
of this issue from the side of RIPE NCC, but that's just a question of time and
will. The infrastructure, policy, and contractual basis are well established.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Or are you saying that PI holders should just give their PI to the friendly LIR
which can then convert it to PA and transfer it? Who will make the buck then?
Should the PI holder retain any rights once the address is transferred to the
'friendy' LIR or will the LIR be allowed to just transfer the new allocation to
whoever they want?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">b) "There is already some trade in PI space, however it is not documented or
registered, which doesn�t help to keep the registry updated."
This is also disingenuous, as every IPv4 PI space holder has a contract with the
sponsoring LIR (and indirectly, with the RIPE NCC). This LIR can, and should,
regularly verify and update these details in cooperation with the registrant.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">let's think about this scenario..You are an LIR and you have 500 PI customers
for which you are Sponsoring LIR, you will probably call the PI holder or send
him an e-mail to verify that they still exist because at least once a year you
will be paying a fee to the RIPE NCC for the maintenance of that PI. If the PI
holder says that he still has the same contact details and the IP addresses are
still used, what resources will you invest to verify that the holder of the
address space is still the one documented in the RIPE Database?
- do not forget, you (as LIR) pay �50/year for the maintenance of the resource
to the RIPE NCC and probably make (in average) �25-50/year/resource yourself...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Let us indeed think about this scenario. 2007-01 introduced a set of contractual
specifics which the end user must agree to in order to continue holding an
assignment. A model contract is available at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/independent-resources/independent-assignment-request-and-maintenance-agreement-1">http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/independent-resources/independent-assignment-request-and-maintenance-agreement-1</a>
If you review the items in article 4:
- Terms a, b, and c specifically establish that the resources are to be used
only by a specific user, for a specific purpose, and are never the property of
the end user, and are non-transferable.
- Term e requires specifically that the end user provides up to date information
about the resource and end user.
- Article 4.4 explicitly allows RIPE NCC to revoke assignments if these terms
are not met.
A variation of this contract including these terms is signed by every single PI
holder. This means every LIR is already under the obligation to ensure
compliance, and every end user is already subject to having the assigned
resources revoked for violating the terms laid out in the contract.
What the LIR chooses to charge in order to fulfill these obligations in overhead
is completely at the discretion of the LIR. It stands to reason that as the
scarcity of IPv4 addresses becomes more pressing, additional effort would be
placed into auditing and resource reclamation by the RIPE NCC, and thus
additional costs will be passed by LIRs to their customers to ensure on-going
compliance - costs which customers will undoubtedly be willing to bear to avoid
risking the loss of the assigned resource.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
I think that bringing in the registry/database all the PI transfers that
currently happen without proper registration/update is the most important goal
which this proposal will achieve.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
The existing contracts between the RIPE NCC, the LIR, and the End User already
require this, and there is an explicit clause that enables revocation if this
obligation is not met.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">c) "A lot of current PI space holders are more than happy to have their
assignments re-assigned to other parties, but due to the current policy it is
not possible. The same goes for the documentation provided to the RIPE NCC
during mergers or acquisitions of infrastructure with PI space. Due to the
current policy, some changes in company names are marked as mergers or
acquisitions when they are actually a transfer of IP space with added
documentation to make it look like an merger or acquisition of infrastructure."
If a legitimate transfer has occurred as part of legitimate organizational
restructuring, there is no disincentive to document it. The disincentive only
exists if the registrant fears the transfer's legitimacy may be questioned,
which is exactly the intention for non-transferable, end-user assigned PI space.
Such transferred allocations could, and should, per current policy, be simply
reclaimed.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Who will give up their address space? The numbers are now considered assets and
may be worth a buck or two...
Or would you rather see PI never transferable and the RIPE NCC reclaiming it
when it's no longer needed?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Not everyone are quite as eager to throw years of policy work under a bus at the
first sight of financial incentive. I have personally returned several PI
assignments over the past few years under various hats. I'm positively sure I am
not alone in this.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">d) "We want to have an open and honest communication to the RIPE NCC from the
community and we need to make sure that the registry is up to date, without
having to fluff up the procedures, bend the rules and truth in communication to
the RIPE NCC to be able to transfer the IP space."
Alternatively, elements which "bend the rules and truth" could be identified,
and, within reason, have their resources reclaimed. Certainly, such enforcement
can never be perfect - but speed traps also do not catch 100% of speeding cars.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Please come up with a proposal for this reclamation process; I'd really love to
see it on the mailing list.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
There is no need for this. The grounds for reclamation are already clearly
outlined in article 4.4 of the contract signed by each end user as mentioned
above. The rest is an operational matter.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">With a few documented instances, this would create tremendous uncertainty and
disincentive to engage in such practices from the buy side, as it will mean that
any resources acquired in this manner may very suddenly get written off.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">So, once the RIPE NCC would reclaim something that was transferred without it's
approval, it should tell the whole world? What about the privacy of the
communication that the RIPE NCC is so proud of? How would you document such an
instance?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Once the RIPE NCC has reclaimed something transferred without its approval, it
can publish an aggregate statistics on the number of addresses revoked, perhaps
as part of its annual report.
This will not in any way infringe on anyone's privacy but serve as an obvious
deterrent by demonstrating that this does, in fact, happen, when policy is
blatantly disregarded.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">e) "The goal of this policy change is to get PI space on-par with PA space in
respect to the ability to transfer it."
See (a). It seems very disingenuous to make PI and PA "equal for purposes of
transferability" but maintain the distinction in all other aspects.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">There will no longer be many distinction between PI and PA. The only one I can
think of is that PA can be further assigned. Maybe we should come up with a
policy proposal to allow PI sub-assignments and remove the differences between
PA and PI in that process? I only see a problem, the same one I faced with IPv6
unification, the fee unification.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">To summarize, I strongly object to this policy in its current form.
I concur that the mobility of IPv4 PI space toward those who value it most is
desirable - on the condition that this mobility occurs as part of a wider reform
to eliminate the distinction between PA and PI status of IPv4 resources.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">This policy proposal is the first step, you could try and make the next step and
propose a bigger change. From my experience (just last year) the community gets
scared when you start talking about big changes (I was trying to unify IPv6 PA
and PI, without even having all the conspiracy theory about brokers flying
around my ears). These big changes will never work.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">This should result in equitable burden for all resource holders toward the RIPE
NCC instead of lining the pockets of IP address brokers by helping address space
speculators which presently hoard IPv4 PI assignments against policy realize
profits at the expense of the community.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">IP brokers can and are already helping others to get the address space they need
by brokering PA transactions. Why do you think that enabling IPv4 PI transfers
will be the benefit of only the Brokers?
I think this policy proposal is in the benefit of us all:
- cleaner registry
- all holders of address space (PA or PI) can monetize it equally ;)
- remove any temptations to 'bend the rules'
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
I think this policy will accomplish exactly two things:
- Introduce a bureaucratic nightmare requiring the changing of all existing end
user contracts, as what it proposes is a direct violation of the terms set out
in article 4 of the model contract (and the contractual requirements the RIPE
NCC imposed on LIRs who created their own end user contracts as part of 2007-01).
- Reward those in the community who have chosen to hoard IPv4 PI assignments in
instead of return them in blatant disregard of the policy they have agreed to
during the initial assignment, and again upon signing the end user contract.
Neither of these things is desirable.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">PS: I hope you do know that a transfer can happen without brokers having to be
involved. Actually, I am under the impression that most of the transfers (in
numbers of transfers and not of IPs) have been made by LIRs mutually agreeing to
the transfer via the Listing Service and not via brokers/escrow. When it comes
to large blocks and a lot of money, some prefer to have a broker in the middle,
for the safety of both parties.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">--
Respectfully yours,
David Monosov
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Kind regards,
Elvis
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
--
Respectfully yours,
David Monosov
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="400">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="180"><a href="http://v4escrow.net"
target="_blank"><img
src="cid:part1.00080802.08020305@v4escrow.net"
style="margin:10px 40px 0px 0px" height="96"
width="178"></a></td>
<td valign="top" width="200">
<h1 style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); margin: 0px 0px
10px;color:#1a9bd7;font-size:14px; ">Elvis Daniel Velea</h1>
<h2 style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 14px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); margin: 0px 0px
10px;color:#74757d;font-size:13px;font-weight:100; ">Chief
Business Analyst</h2>
<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size:12px; line-height:20px; font-weight:regular;
color:#74757d; margin:5px 0px;"> <span
style="color:#000;">Email:</span>�<a
href="mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net" style="color:#74757d;
text-decoration: none; ">elvis@V4Escrow.net</a><br>
<span style="color:#000;">US Phone:</span>�+1�(702)�475�5914<br>
<span style="color:#000;">EU Phone:</span>�+3�(161)�458�1914<br>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<p style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size:12px;
line-height:15px;color:#000;margin-top:15px;text-align:center;"
align="center">Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in:</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"> <img
src="cid:part4.03030206.07090201@v4escrow.net"
usemap="#Map" style="margin-top:5px;" border="0"
height="28" width="376"> </td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" style="padding-left:5px;padding-right:15px;">
<p style="color:#bbb;font-family: Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif;font-size:10px;margin-top:15px;text-align:center;">This
message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private
information. If you have received this email in error,
please notify the sender immediately and delete the
original.Any other use of this email is strictly
prohibited.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<map name="Map">
<area shape="rect" coords="1,2,65,28"
href="http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/ipv4-transfers/brokers"
target="_blank">
<area shape="rect" coords="138,0,234,31"
href="http://www.apnic.net/services/become-a-member/manage-your-membership/transfer-resources/transfer-facilitators"
target="_blank">
<area shape="rect" coords="297,3,380,40"
href="https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/facilitator_list.html"
target="_blank">
</map>
</div>
</body>
</html>