Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

I'll be short as I'm assisting an interesting presentation ;) What I meant is that it's not "right" to be a contact person for them since I'm not the one making decisions. I'm an interface and I should be able to represent, help, interact but I feel by not allowing this, we're going too far with

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Hi, Actually there were cases where we did like that, being put as a contact for the LIR. I don't think this should be the solution as it doesn't seem adequate at least. There were also cases where we would have to "speak" on behalf of both parties so it would be awkward if not unprofessional to

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Hi, On Monday, October 24, 2016, Carsten Schiefner <ripe-wgs...@schiefner.de> wrote: > Hi Ciprian - > > On 23.10.2016 16:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > On Sunday, October 23, 2016, Erik Bais <eb...@a2b-internet.com > <javascript:;> > > <mailto:eb.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Sander Steffann wrote: > > > So it doesn't matter what the policy says it's scope is, it only matters > what the chair decides we can discuss or not. Nice "democracy" we have ... > > Even in parliament you need a chairperson to keep the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 6:05 PM, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hello Ciprian, > > > It is also beyond the scope of this policy regulating what can be done > with resources and we're still discussing it. Let's stick to the policy's > scope and start a new one with proper debates

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Sasha, > > > In market-based economies, M -including the disposal of > > assets- are a matter for the parties involved and, occasionally, a state > regulator, which the NCC is NOT. > > It is unthinkable in such a

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

I didn't have any popcorn but a few nachos were helpful to read the full e-mail. Very good and detailed explanations. +100 from me to Elvis which can also be read as -100 for the policy. For those of you who pretend working, it's friday so you can't trick anyone ;). You'd better read Elvis's

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Hi Sander, I hoped you would understand the idea and not hang on details. Yes, an integration process can take days, weeks, months or years. There are cases when placing a 24 months hold would make no difference but in most cases I think (based on the experience with previous acquisitions at my

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Agree with Sascha. As with the Allocated PI, in this situation RIPE community would like to impose some policies which are against the most common business practices. It is not efficient as it can at any time be attacked in any civilized justice system. Can anyone bring out some data on the "huge"

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

On Friday, October 21, 2016, Havard Eidnes wrote: > > What you say could be expressed (again it's a metaphor) like this: > > If you're interested in swaying the opinion in your favour you > would do well by avoiding arguing by using metaphors or colurful > paraphrasing, and

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

Hi, Since there were many discussions and yes, I've made the mistake to write in a different topic about the 2015-04, I want to state clearly that I oppose this policy. Again, if it would do what it's goal is, then it would be perfect. But it doesn't. It brings up important changes which are

Re: [address-policy-wg] ALLOCATED PI / UNSPECIFIED next action

probably break some contracts could result in some legal complaints. And why are we doing this ? Just for a few silvers ? Ciprian On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 12:30 AM, Carlos Friacas <cfria...@fccn.pt> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > I agree wi

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

On Thursday, October 20, 2016, Randy Bush wrote: > > If I would moderate the list I would remove people > > let's not > > Ok, I can be a hater too sometimes but I don't like it. > I lived under the communist time and I know how it is when a leader > > says something wrong but he

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi, Over the years I saw many "haters" which are against this business. I didn't invent it and the real money goes to the ones that got the resources for "free" and then seek to make a fortune out of it. There were people in the first years telling me that this business is illegal. Well, I guess

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

not bring important changes. Ciprian On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Gert Doering <g...@space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 04:28:25PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > I never said Gert did something that was against any policy. Probably he > > never did such

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

I accept the warning and I also found about Godwin today. Matbe I should have made a more appropriate comparison. I appologize to Gert, once again. Please take some action against poeple which attack me personally just because they don't like what I say. Or maybe my colour, sexual orientation or

Re: [address-policy-wg] unacceptable conduct and ad-hominem attacks

t; wrote: > Man, > > not much IP brokerage business to take care of on your desk today? > Maybe call some customers? They're probably waiting for that. > > #justanidea > #lifecanbespentinproductivewaystoo > > cheers > > Enno > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 04:33:20PM +0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

them. There's no need for praising Gert anymore. I got the idea, he's one of the beloved sons of RIPE community. Ciprian On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Roger Jørgensen <rog...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ciprian Nica, > > If you have a problem with someone, or claim someone is abusing

Re: [address-policy-wg] unacceptable conduct and ad-hominem attacks

ett...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Ciprian Nica <off...@ip-broker.uk> wrote: >> >> >> Unsubscribe, shut up, go away... Next time you'll send me to a >> concentration camp ? No I WILL NOT SHUT UP ! I will always express my >> opinion eve

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

s. That way you're only wasting my time. > > thanks > > Enno > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 04:10:59PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > > I guess we need the board of RIPE NCC to once in a while step up and > > > block things when > > > they see cle

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

> I guess we need the board of RIPE NCC to once in a while step up and > block things when > they see clear abuse. > Here is the fact: % Version 1 of object "185.54.120.0 - 185.54.123.255" % This version was a UPDATE operation on 2014-04-17 16:59 % You can use "--list-versions" to get a list

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

all. Ciprian On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Gert Doering <g...@space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 02:34:40PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > It's a simple question from a member of the community to one of the WG > > Chairs: did you abuse the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

over here ? Ciprian On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Gert Doering <g...@space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 01:44:25PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote > > > Just for the record: part of the WG Chair's job is to judge the > "roughness" > > >

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

> Just for the record: part of the WG Chair's job is to judge the "roughness" > of consensus based on the amount of supporting and opposing voices - both > the number, and the quality of arguments have to be weighted (and to some > extent the person making a certain argument). > I'm certainly not

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

I totally agree with the AS number situation. When I worked for RCS we acquired many companies and although we kept some AS numbers, it really makes no sense in putting a 24 months lock on them. Ciprian On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Plesa Niculae wrote: > Dear colleagues, >

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

In the published version at point "B. Impact of Policy on Registry and Addressing System" it just states "After analysing the data that is currently available, the RIPE NCC does not anticipate that any significant impact will be caused if this proposal is implemented." Is it possible that we

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Totally agree with Radu. -1 for this policy from me too. Ciprian On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016, at 10:33, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote: > > Hi. > > > > It is obviously the 99℅ of members want to withdraw this

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

On Wednesday, 21 October 2015, Shahin Gharghi wrote: > >> >> >> > They need IP more than every country and they can't have even ONE IPv6. >> >> What's stoping Iranian LIRs getting an IPv6 allocation from the NCC? >> > > ​Iran has a lot of IPv6 allocation but can't announce

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

>> If RIPE runs out of IPv4 sooner it will not help switching to v6 faster. >> It only means that the new entrants will have to buy the resources from >> the market at prices which will be obviously higher. >> > > ​And what will happen if we run out of IPv4 later? People have to pay a lot > of

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

On 10/21/2015 4:05 PM, Netskin NOC wrote: > Am 21.10.2015 um 14:40 schrieb Ciprian Nica: >> >> I would support something like this but with a few changes. I would set >> some milestones, let's say by the end of 2016 you need to have 5% IPv6 >> adoption rate or you hav

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

Assignments are between LIR and end user and at this moment RIPE doesn't care much about them, only, as you mentioned, that they are properly reflected in the registry. If there were a policy already allowing RIPE to get back allocations, I think the situation would have been different (I can't

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

ing country of IPv4 resources. I don't understand why there's still this confusion that if RIPE's pool will be empty, many think there will be no more IPv4 available and everyone will go the next day to IPv6. It's totally wrong. Ciprian Nica

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

> That's exactly my point. The current policy is mostly against new providers > (I know many think it's a policy to help > them). What about my previous suggestion, like a policy to force ipv4 space > holders to return ex. 10% of their ipv4 per > year. Money/ effort involved with the transition

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

> Don't get me wrong, but I think we are in some kind of dilemma here. Many > knew this would become a free lunch, so why > vote against it? Policies are adopted through consensus so we can asume that at the time of adoption any policy was what (most of) the community wanted. > "With great

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

So it would be ok to sell as long as you don't make a living out of it :) The idea was that you can't just forbid the wave to hit you. Nobody can control the entire community and decide what will happen. RIPE (community) has decided to allow transfers as it would help ease the pain on those who

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05

pace for > new lirs in future ... > Do you love it now ;) ? > On 21 Oct 2015 12:28, "Ciprian Nica" <off...@ip-broker.uk> wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/21/2015 2:20 PM, Tom Smyth wrote: >>> Perhaps people would support the Proposal, if the there

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published

Hi, On 6/10/2015 1:48 PM, Lu Heng wrote: Abuse is not an opinion, it is an statement and accusation, and you are making an statement in a public space about me and my company, unless you have solicit evidence, such statement is unlawful across each continent. If what happens today with the

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published

going to protect the value of the assets that were obtained through abuse in the past ? Yours, Ciprian Nica

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis

I totally understand Gert for being annoyed by this kind of gmail/yahoo e-mails. Anna, if you have an opinion present it like I did and try to support it with arguments. And use your company e-mail if you are representing an LIR. Truth can't be shut up even by the devil's advocate. But bringing

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published

Hi, Gert, sorry but I don't want to leave things unclear so I'll send this one last reply to Lu. Please don't take into consideration any discussions related to this issue when analyzing the 2015-01 approval. It is off-topic but I think it shows a problem that needs to be understood and maybe

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published

Hi, I was called up by someone posting my personally information as well as my company information in the list, and all I did was defend my self. I would call the community as well as the Chair, to clarify, personal information and attack should not be put in to a policy discussion list,

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

+0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: A big minus from me to this policy as I think that profit should not be the only reason that drives our actions. Profit is very explicitely not the reason behind this. Even if Elvis is driving the policy - those who care to also *read* this list know that he

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

/2015 7:43 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: You spoke that some russians make profit and don't speak about other nations. Table of TOP transfers from your last letter shows it clearly. 09.06.2015, 19:33, Ciprian Nica off...@ip-broker.uk: On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: help

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

to return unused blocks (during a year e.g.)? It will be more effectively. 09.06.2015, 19:33, Ciprian Nica off...@ip-broker.uk: On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote: help the last /8 pool become even larger It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

We all hate some things, wish for others... But making the life harder is not equal to solving the problem. Ciprian Nica On 6/9/2015 9:01 PM, Ondřej Caletka wrote: Dne 9.6.2015 v 18:09 Ciprian Nica napsal(a): I saw a lot of flames and smoke but no real objective, technical, analysis

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

when you shorten the supply, prices will grow. If there would have been a policy that would say let's get back the IPs from those who don't use them, that would really help. Ciprian Nica IP Broker Ltd.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

effects, it doesn't help conserve the last /8 pool and there are no benefits to the community by adopting it. That's what's important. All other discussions lead to polemics that should be taken somewhere else. Maybe at the RIPE meetings. Ciprian Nica IP Broker Ltd.

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

There can be startups that get sold before 2 years and they would get affected or companies that go broke and try to get back part of their investment, but, as you saw, the guys that do circumvent RIPE policy will still be able to do it, so it won't affect them. Ciprian On 6/9/2015 10:49 PM,