[members-discuss] [comms] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple

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://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20160216/a2cfaa3a/attachment.html>