Sorry previous mail Garry not aimed at you My point is if consultation is closed .... these emails are a waste of everyones time... including this one sorry On 11 Jun 2015 15:02, "Tom Smyth" <tom.sm...@wirelessconnect.eu> wrote:
> I suggest add a filter in your mail if subject > Re: [address-policy-wg] Future of Re: [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft > Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements > for IPv4 Allocations) > > Action Delete > On 11 Jun 2015 13:57, "Garry Glendown" <ga...@nethinks.com> wrote: > >> >> >> I will readily admit that I can not come up with a text which prevents >> >> abuse _and_ allows for valid operational needs, though. >> > Indeed. Mergers & acquisitions are real-world business events that APWG >> > cannot affect. I see a big nut to crack on how to address abuse via >> > "illegitimate" M&A, including figuring out what is and what is not >> > "illegitimate" and "abuse". >> I reckon if/when this proposal has gone through (either confirmed or >> rejected), some sane solution to this whole thing has to be found ... as >> several people - even some nay-sayers - have said, the current proposal >> does not cover enough bases to discourage or prevent policy abuse. >> >> I'm sure that - as it has a direct impact on the business of both >> IP-brokers and wannabe-profiteers - it will face even stronger >> opposition by several people, but most likely no substantial arguments >> (as we have already seen these last couple days - after all, saying "it >> will cut in my personal profit" won't be a valid argument against the >> policy to knowingly cut into profits of policy-abusers in order to allow >> late entries into the ISP market some affordable set of IPv4 addresses). >> >> Without really thinking about all possibilities, I would imagine there >> are certain reasons for or against the transfer of IPs, though some >> wording and "way of proof" would have to be found that be used to decide >> whether a transfer was permitted or not ... >> >> From the top of my head, for a transfer, certain situations come to mind: >> >> * merger/acquisition of company (can be proved through official >> papers/registration information) >> * is there actually any other justifiable reason? >> >> Personally, I would see certain use cases where a transfer is not >> necessary for any technical/organizational reasons: (which may even >> weigh stronger than e.g. the merger/acquisition argument) >> >> * shutdown of an ISP or company, where loss of IP usage would not impact >> customers (current use is terminated, IPs are no longer announced) >> * IPs were never (publicly?) used or only intermittently announced (how >> could actual use be documented apart from just an announcement? Would an >> announcement on the Internet be sufficient?), or have been unused for a >> certain amount of time (3 months?) >> >> Due to the fact that IP addresses (especially PAs assigned to an LIR) >> are not "owned" by the LIR (in part documented by the yearly bill for >> the resource) IPs should not count as an asset with monetary value, thus >> allowing the RIR to collect them if policy requirements aren't met. >> >> Possibly: Requirement to announce and use IPs from last-/8 within 3 >> months of assignment, otherwise the non-transferal-duration would be >> extended by 1 year >> >> *putting on flame-resistant armor* >> >> -garry >> >>
