Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

[Sascha Luck [ml]]

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 06:55:03PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:

"explicitly" implies that this has been, uh, explicitly written down
somewhere.  Could you provide a reference?


I was sure I'd read an explicit declaration that transfers due to
business transactions do not fall under transfer policies in one
of the alloc/assignment policy docs, however I might have been
wrong and was thinking of ripe-654 which is a Organisational
Document. 
This document, in sec 2.0 recognises transfers thus:


A member must inform the RIPE NCC ifone or bothof the following
changes occurs: 


Internet Number Resource are transferred. Such transfers may take
place:

Because of a change in the members business structure, for
example in the case of a merger or acquisition of the members
organisation.

In the case of a transfer of Internet number resources from the
member to another party according to RIPE Policies (section 5.5
and 6.4 of IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for
the RIPE NCC Service Region , section 8 of IPv6 Address
Allocation and Assignment Policy and section 4.0 of Autonomous
System (AS) Number Assignment Policies ). Such a transfer may
also be facilitated through the RIPE NCC Listing Service .

The member changes its official legal name . Such a change may
occur, for example, because of a merger or acquisition of the
members organisation.

So there are transfers due to M, name changes, and *according
to transfer policy*. Three separate cases.

Which also means that 2015-04, stating explicitly that M
transfers are subject to policy, contradicts ripe-654 and would
trigger a change of this document - which I hope would be subject
to membership approval via GM vote.

rgds,
Sascha Luck

Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:53:10PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> RIPE policy has, until recently, explicitly recognised that M (and

"explicitly" implies that this has been, uh, explicitly written down 
somewhere.  Could you provide a reference?

Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AGVorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14  Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444   USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Sasha,

> RIPE policy has, until recently, explicitly recognised that M (and
> what happens to resources due to those) is not in scope for the
> PDP. It is only since "last /8" that certain elements of the
> "community" have tried, by hook or by crook, to arrogate
> themselves the right to decide what happens to resources in the
> event of M

It has always been in scope, it just hasn't been very interesting to write 
policy about. Until now when people are using it as a way to circumvent policy.

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

[Sascha Luck [ml]]

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:44:05PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:

RIPE policy does regulate IP allocations and under what
conditions you are allowed to have/transfer/etc them. I agree
that RIPE policy cannot regulate an organisation's M itself,
but what happens to IP allocations when M happens definitely
is in scope.


RIPE policy has, until recently, explicitly recognised that M (and
what happens to resources due to those) is not in scope for the
PDP. It is only since "last /8" that certain elements of the
"community" have tried, by hook or by crook, to arrogate
themselves the right to decide what happens to resources in the
event of M

rgds,
Sascha Luck




Not expressing any opinion in favour or against, just clarifying
scope :)

Cheers, Sander

Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

[Sander Steffann]

Hi Sasha,

> The fact remains that policy has no business regulating into the
> business transactions of members (vulgo M) and I oppose it for
> that reason alone.

RIPE policy does regulate IP allocations and under what conditions you are 
allowed to have/transfer/etc them. I agree that RIPE policy cannot regulate an 
organisation's M itself, but what happens to IP allocations when M happens 
definitely is in scope.

Not expressing any opinion in favour or against, just clarifying scope :)

Cheers,
Sander



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

[Sascha Luck [ml]]

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 12:45:31AM +0200, Erik Bais wrote:

As stated during the discussion at the AP, a change to the
holdership will to fall under the same restrictions as the
transfers currently, that was pointed out AND discussed since
version 1.


The fact remains that policy has no business regulating into the
business transactions of members (vulgo M) and I oppose it for
that reason alone. 


rgds,
Sascha Luck

Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Hi Erik,

On 5/30/16 1:45 AM, Erik Bais wrote:


Hi Elvis,

I oppose to your word choice that we are trying to sneak something in, 
with this policy.


As stated during the discussion at the AP, a change to the holdership 
will to fall under the same restrictions as the transfers currently, 
that was pointed out AND discussed since version 1.


that was my mistake, I was sure I had pointed it out in an older 
e-mail.. can't find it so it probably never made it to the list and was 
in draft status forever :)


If a company is currently doing a M after that particular company 
has become a (new) LIR since 6 months, it means it needs to keep the 
LIR open for another 18 months..


For any M, the cost for a membership fee of 18 months will not be a 
deal breaker for an actual business take-over … unless one is trying 
to game the system.


well, this is what I was opposing to. However, after further discussions 
offline, I no longer think this is quite such a bad idea. So, I no 
longer oppose.


To give an indication,  the damage of a diner with 7 people at the 
MASH Penthouse at the RIPE72 venue can be more expensive ...



you never invited me there... I would've wanted to see the proof.


Thanks for the feedback.


so, +1 to the proposal.

cheers,
elvis


Regards,

Erik Bais

*Van:*address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] 
*Namens *Elvis Daniel Velea

*Verzonden:* woensdag 25 mei 2016 10:28
*Aan:* address-policy-wg@ripe.net
*Onderwerp:* Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

Dears,

as mentioned during the policy session, I am opposing to this (version 
of) the policy proposal.


While I was sure that I did voice this concern over the mailing list, 
I can not find the e-mail now. But I am sure I did voice this concern 
and the opposition at previous RIPE Meeting(s).
As long as this proposal adds the 2 years holding period of scarce 
resources moved through M (which are 'regulated' through a RIPE NCC 
procedure) I will oppose to it.


I am not going to go into examples wars of why some company would want 
to transfer/move/merge/etc.. resources within a 2 years period. While 
I agree that transfers should have a holding (or call it anti-flip) 
period and I even proposed 2015-01 (which is now part of policy), I do 
not agree that we should include M in the same bucket.


If a new version of this policy proposal would be only about transfers 
of IP addresses, and not try to sneak in M into the same document, 
I would agree with it.


my 2 cents,
elvis

On 5/25/16 9:52 AM, Remco van Mook wrote:

Dear all,

as just mentioned during the address policy session, I'm withdrawing my 
objection to 2015-04. While I do think a discussion about policy structure 
still needs to be held, I don't think it should hold up this proposal any 
longer. This can be fixed after adoption - as long as we're aware.

I do maintain my suggestion to put references in place where chapters about 
transfers are removed from other sections of policy.

Kind regards,

Remco

--

<http://v4escrow.net>




  Elvis Daniel Velea


Chief Executive Officer

E-mail:el...@v4escrow.net <mailto:el...@v4escrow.net>
Mobile: +1 (702) 970 0921

Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in:

Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

[Erik Bais]

Thanks Remco. 

We'll take your suggestion in mind before moving to last call. 

Regards,
Erik Bais 

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Remco van Mook [mailto:remco.vanm...@gmail.com] 
Verzonden: woensdag 25 mei 2016 9:53
Aan: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
CC: Erik Bais 
Onderwerp: opposition to 2015-04


Dear all,

as just mentioned during the address policy session, I'm withdrawing my
objection to 2015-04. While I do think a discussion about policy structure
still needs to be held, I don't think it should hold up this proposal any
longer. This can be fixed after adoption - as long as we're aware.

I do maintain my suggestion to put references in place where chapters about
transfers are removed from other sections of policy.

Kind regards,

Remco

Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

[Erik Bais]

Hi Elvis,  

 

I oppose to your word choice that we are trying to sneak something in, with
this policy. 

 

As stated during the discussion at the AP, a change to the holdership will
to fall under the same restrictions as the transfers currently, that was
pointed out AND discussed since version 1. 

 

If a company is currently doing a M after that particular company has
become a (new) LIR since 6 months, it means it needs to keep the LIR open
for another 18 months.. 

For any M, the cost for a membership fee of 18 months will not be a deal
breaker for an actual business take-over … unless one is trying to game the
system.  

 

To give an indication,  the damage of a diner with 7 people at the MASH
Penthouse at the RIPE72 venue can be more expensive ...  

 

Thanks for the feedback. 

 

Regards,

Erik Bais 

 

Van: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Namens
Elvis Daniel Velea
Verzonden: woensdag 25 mei 2016 10:28
Aan: address-policy-wg@ripe.net
Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

 

Dears,

as mentioned during the policy session, I am opposing to this (version of)
the policy proposal.

While I was sure that I did voice this concern over the mailing list, I can
not find the e-mail now. But I am sure I did voice this concern and the
opposition at previous RIPE Meeting(s).
As long as this proposal adds the 2 years holding period of scarce resources
moved through M (which are 'regulated' through a RIPE NCC procedure) I
will oppose to it. 

I am not going to go into examples wars of why some company would want to
transfer/move/merge/etc.. resources within a 2 years period. While I agree
that transfers should have a holding (or call it anti-flip) period and I
even proposed 2015-01 (which is now part of policy), I do not agree that we
should include M in the same bucket.

If a new version of this policy proposal would be only about transfers of IP
addresses, and not try to sneak in M into the same document, I would
agree with it.

my 2 cents,
elvis

On 5/25/16 9:52 AM, Remco van Mook wrote:

 
Dear all,
 
as just mentioned during the address policy session, I'm withdrawing my
objection to 2015-04. While I do think a discussion about policy structure
still needs to be held, I don't think it should hold up this proposal any
longer. This can be fixed after adoption - as long as we're aware.
 
I do maintain my suggestion to put references in place where chapters about
transfers are removed from other sections of policy.
 
Kind regards,
 
Remco

 

-- 


 <http://v4escrow.net> 

 


Elvis Daniel Velea


Chief Executive Officer


E-mail: el...@v4escrow.net <mailto:el...@v4escrow.net> 
Mobile: +1 (702) 970 0921


Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in:




 

Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

[Elvis Daniel Velea]

Dears,

as mentioned during the policy session, I am opposing to this (version 
of) the policy proposal.


While I was sure that I did voice this concern over the mailing list, I 
can not find the e-mail now. But I am sure I did voice this concern and 
the opposition at previous RIPE Meeting(s).
As long as this proposal adds the 2 years holding period of scarce 
resources moved through M (which are 'regulated' through a RIPE NCC 
procedure) I will oppose to it.


I am not going to go into examples wars of why some company would want 
to transfer/move/merge/etc.. resources within a 2 years period. While I 
agree that transfers should have a holding (or call it anti-flip) period 
and I even proposed 2015-01 (which is now part of policy), I do not 
agree that we should include M in the same bucket.


If a new version of this policy proposal would be only about transfers 
of IP addresses, and not try to sneak in M into the same document, I 
would agree with it.


my 2 cents,
elvis

On 5/25/16 9:52 AM, Remco van Mook wrote:

Dear all,

as just mentioned during the address policy session, I'm withdrawing my 
objection to 2015-04. While I do think a discussion about policy structure 
still needs to be held, I don't think it should hold up this proposal any 
longer. This can be fixed after adoption - as long as we're aware.

I do maintain my suggestion to put references in place where chapters about 
transfers are removed from other sections of policy.

Kind regards,

Remco


--
 


 Elvis Daniel Velea


   Chief Executive Officer

E-mail: el...@v4escrow.net 
Mobile: +1 (702) 970 0921

Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in:

Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

[Aleksey Bulgakov]

Please, go to https://ripe72.ripe.net/live/main/ . There is discussion
about IPv4 proposals now.

2016-05-25 10:52 GMT+03:00 Remco van Mook :
>
> Dear all,
>
> as just mentioned during the address policy session, I'm withdrawing my 
> objection to 2015-04. While I do think a discussion about policy structure 
> still needs to be held, I don't think it should hold up this proposal any 
> longer. This can be fixed after adoption - as long as we're aware.
>
> I do maintain my suggestion to put references in place where chapters about 
> transfers are removed from other sections of policy.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Remco



-- 
--
Best regards,
Aleksey Bulgakov
Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29

[address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

[Remco van Mook]

Dear all,

as just mentioned during the address policy session, I'm withdrawing my 
objection to 2015-04. While I do think a discussion about policy structure 
still needs to be held, I don't think it should hold up this proposal any 
longer. This can be fixed after adoption - as long as we're aware.

I do maintain my suggestion to put references in place where chapters about 
transfers are removed from other sections of policy.

Kind regards,

Remco


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail