[members-discuss] Input from Membership on RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model (fwd)

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Teotonio Ricardo
<teotonio.ricardo at webtuga.pt> wrote:
>
>
> 2016-09-23 0:48 GMT+01:00 Simon Lockhart
> <s.lockhart at cablecomnetworking.co.uk>:
>>
>> On Fri Sep 23, 2016 at 12:42:31AM +0100, Teot?nio Ricardo wrote:
>> > That???s why i think there shouldn???t exist any IPv4 Transfer market.
>> > This
>> > should be disallowed by RIPE.
>>
>> And how do you propose RIPE do this?
>
>
> Isn't RIPE the entity who controls IPv4 Allocation transfers? If RIPE wants,
> no one can transfer Allocation Resources, so there isn't a market.

Here we have a huge misunderstanding, two actual

RIPE is at the community where all the policy gets decided, we meet twice
a year around the RIPE region.
Us here (members-discuss), and in the General Meeting are RIPE NCC members.



The second misunderstanding - RIPE NCC is in the "book keeping" business,
they have a very good database of who control and use which IP addresses.
They are not in the transfer marked to control the marked, they are
there to make
sure the books are up to date on who use what resources and when/if they
change use.
The RIPE Database, and one of the most important thing for RIPE NCC
(if I remember right)  is to make sure that database is correct.


-- 

Roger Jorgensen           | ROJO9-RIPE
rogerj at gmail.com          | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no   | roger at jorgensen.no