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

Hello,
a little example for (little) additional regulation.
Other kinds of solutions work similar, this tries to boil down on motive and solution.

> On 16.02.2016, at 13:46, Thomas Mangin <thomas.mangin at exa-networks.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> Dear RIPE NCC Board,
> 
> Thank you for opening this discussion/consultation.
...
> 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.

New entrants have the interest to stay in the market,
so any attempt to transfer a /22 given under last /8 policy can be denied. 

If any other LIR is e.g. buying this new LIR, they can migrate central services, or keep the LIR open, and pay membership twice for the time being. 
This would make it not only an one time investment to open/close additional LIRs, but increase the running cost of new IPv4 networks.

This is essential what we want: make *new* IPv4 deployment more expensive, to all migrate to a hopeful brighter IPv6 future.
Old players also have incentive to sell address space, instead of hoarding it, as a possible IPv6 world devalues the asset.

Matthias