[members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Pavel Odintsov
odintsov at fastvps.ru
Tue Feb 16 13:51:46 CET 2016
Hello! Perfect contribution Thomas! I could put my sign under each word here. Thanks for your work! On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Thomas Mangin < thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk> wrote: > Dear RIPE NCC Board, > > Thank you for opening this discussion/consultation. > > > 1. Is the activity of members opening additional LIR accounts a > problem that must be prevented? > > It is. The RIPE NCC policies should be written in a way which is > beneficial to its community. > Having a number of organisations using them to profit (financially or by > gaining more IP addresses) is not in our community’s interest. > > However, any response to a problem should be proportional to the issue > and therefore the RIPE NCC’s answer to this problem should take > in consideration the number of member abusing the system and the harm > being done to the community. > > The last /8 policy was mostly written to make sure new entrants are not > priced out of market and from the data there is no evidence this is yet > the case. Therefore any solution should be careful to keep this goal. > > 1. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action > should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention? > > This is a very broad topic, and a decision by consensus without some > more research and a/some paper(s) to guide the discussion seems unwise > here. That said … > > Like others, I can see two scenarios why an organisation may register > several LIR: > (0) it is practical for their organisation - nothing to see > (1) to secure for itself several /22 when the last /8 policy comes in > play > (2) to secure a number of /22 to resell > … If the board is aware of other case, I would welcome some > enlightemement > > For case (1) The RIPE NCC could restrict the number of LIR an > organisation wish to have (to a suitable low but practical number) as > long as this does not impact genuine use of the RIPE NCC. > > For case (2), The most likely impact of forbidding this practice may be > to increase the price of IPv4 at sales (passing on the cost of the > business creation), which would affect people needing IP space - and > required to purchase some - more than the people selling it and making > the profit. > > Price changes should only be brought forward if the RIPE NCC is sure it > can price ‘bad’ business models out. As this is something we have no > data to make our mind on and and which may also have other side effects > - I am unsure it would be wise. > > Also the membership should keep in mind that any new ‘policy’ will be > immediately ‘played’ by people actively trying to game the system. > Therefore careful thoughts should be placed on any new rule placed > which will therefore inevitably have unintended consequences. > > Regarding enforcing some rules for the transfer of resources, I am > concerned it could place the organisation in a position where it could > be on the receiving hand of legal challenges. Therefore I would favour > any solution which would not require any ‘human judgement’ by the > RIPE NCC at transfer time. > > The Board will monitor the discussion and will review it at the next > Executive Board Meeting on 31 March 2016. Depending on the outcome of > that meeting, the Board may propose a resolution for members to vote on at > the RIPE NCC General Meeting in May 2016. > > I would hope the RIPE NCC does put forwad some proposals for vote. As > the board may not be in a position to ‘guess’ the option(s) most likely > to gain consensus, a number of proposals could be presented to the > membership so should a proposal succeed (or fail) others can be > presented to complete / replace it. (This assumes the extra new LIRs are > not already in a veto position with our usual voting engagement) > > Also the RIPE NCC may consider to add this information to the list of > RIPE NCC’s LIR as: > - it would allow to spot who may oppose changes to the RIPE NCC > policies due to personal gain > - it would the community to use other form of self-regulation to act > on this matter should the RIPE NCC fail to reach consensus. > > Some of the options to remove the benefit of registering several LIR are > (more than one could be considered for a solution): > - creating some more aggresive rules regarding the transfer of > resources > - not allowing resources transfer for ‘young’ LIR > - changing the rules for the last /8 > * having a concept of related LIR > * providing some space in relation to the existing allocation (at > the cost of increasing the fragmentation of the /8). > - revoking the last /8 policy - treating it as normal > - revoking the last /8 policy - keeping the space until more > visibility on how best use it can be gathered. > - .. surely some more .. > > Sincerely, > > Thomas Mangin > Exa Networks Limited > > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > -- Sincerely yours, Pavel Odintsov CTO, FastVPS Eesti OU -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160216/a2cfaa3a/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]