That's a good point, what would happen when a business splits ? I think there are many situations that need to be discussed and if we want to do something good we'd need to cover all situations. And yes, there is definitely the need for better policies in order for NCC to do exactly what the community wants and not leave room for interpretation.
Ciprian On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 11:33 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016, at 13:42, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > > > RIPE NCC recognises that and puts M&A firmly outside policy. > > Where it should remain unless the desire is that every transfer > > application or M&A notification start with filing suit against > > the NCC. > > On the other hand, since RIPE NCC *DOES* allow multiple LIRs per single > legal entity, it would make some sense that the M&A procedure (the one > outside the policy scope) is limited to only changing the name of the > LIR. > Of course that would mean that all movements of IP addresses between > LIRs, even those related to mergers, acquisition, restructuring, > consolidation, ..... would fall under transfer policy. Could someone > detail what would be the problem in this case (except a limited amount > of money of up to 4200 EUR). > Unfortunately this is not where we are, and it doesn't look like it's > where is going. > > As for RIPE NCC handling completely on its own the M&A process this is > exactly what allowed abuse to happen in the first place (and will still > do, even with 2015-01, 2015-04 and 2016-03). And how about a business > split - this doesn't feel like handled by the M&A procedure. > > -- > Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > >
