On Oct 21, 2016 13:42, "Sascha Luck [ml]" <<a href="mailto:apwg@c4inet.net">apwg@c4inet.net</a>> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 01:17:32PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote: >>> >>> As for 2015-04, I oppose it as it tries yet again to bring M&A >>> under policy regulation (s. 2.2) which the community has no >>> business doing. >> >> >> Please educate me why the community has no business doing this. >> I would have thought that was well within scope for the address >> policy. > > > In market-based economies, M&As -including the disposal of > assets- are a matter for the parties involved and, occasionally, a state regulator, which the NCC is NOT. > It is unthinkable in such a society that business decisions are > subject to the whim of random people on a mailing list. The > RIPE NCC recognises that and puts M&A firmly outside policy. > Where it should remain unless the desire is that every transfer > application or M&A notification start with filing suit against > the NCC. I think our main problem here is that people think of IP space handed out by RIRs to be an asset just as a datacenter building or a router. It is not, it is a right to use a resources given a few limitation (ncc member ship is one). However pre RIR IP space might be considered an assets as I see it. --- Roger J --- > rgds, > Sascha Luck >