<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><title>Re: [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations</title><style></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>Hi Gabriel, <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I agree with you that it might satisfy a specific need for a company at a certain time to open a new LIR.. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I’ve seen LIR’s request for a /22 that didn’t even knew they could still get a free /22 from the RIPE NCC. . . . <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>The goal of this proposal is to stop the abuse of opening a new LIR, transferring the /22 for profit to another LIR and close the LIR. <o:p></o:p>As it is against the original intent of the final /8 last /22 procedure (<a href="https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-643#51">https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-643#51</a> ) <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>And specifically : <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Point 3 : The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation.<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>The intention of the current policy and why it was made as it was in the past, is to give EVERY LIR 1 additional /22 … and also have enough for new entries in the market ( looking at the new sign-ups of LIR typically in the market, if you look at how that number grew over the last couple years.. ) for at least 5 to 6 years … <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Point 3 doesn’t say .. The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation or transfer parts or the complete allocation for profit to another LIR. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>This policy text was never intended to have new LIR’s being setup and closed just to get cheap IP’s … And I’m pretty sure that if that was foreseen at the time, that the respective author would have closed that gap at the time … <o:p></o:p>As that is in the past … and this is currently being abused .. It is time to fix this and close this gap. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Regards,<o:p></o:p>Erik Bais <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>Van: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Infinity Telecom SRL Verzonden: donderdag 23 april 2015 13:41 Aan: Erik Bais; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations<o:p></o:p></div></div><o:p> </o:p>Hello Erik, Why someone will come to me to get new IPs, when they can open a LIR by them self ? Without extra cost ? I think everyone that open a LIR right now its because they dont have any chance to BUY from sellers.. Thank you. -- Cu stima, Gabriel Voitis | Sales Manager <a href="mailto:voitis@infinitytelecom.ro">voitis@infinitytelecom.ro</a> INFINITY TELECOM SRL | Bd-ul Iuliu Maniu nr 7, Corp A, Scara 2 Mobil: +40 0725 677 477 | Tel: +40 021 7808805 | Fax: +40 021 7808806 <a href="mailto:contact@infinitytelecom.ro">contact@infinitytelecom.ro</a><o:p></o:p></div></body></html>