See my reply below:

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk> wrote:

Hi Lu,

On 6/10/2015 11:50 AM, Lu Heng wrote:
> Hi Ciprian:
>
> Since it become personal attack again, I feel the need to responds. But at
> least this time it was not random gmail address used by someone to hide
> their identity. So I will responds:

I would never hide when wanting to express my opinions. I don't have
anything personal with you, it is a random example of the many abuses
that I have noticed and I stick to my opinion that it was an abuse.

"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.

> Here is your example and my company happened to be the receivee to all of
> three allocation you have mentioned.

Not your company, I've checked the original inetnums and at that time
the allocations were made to you as a natural person.

The allocation was issued to my company at time of registration.

But it does not matter, as it is my personally and my company business structure and affair, has nothing to do with the list.

> My company as far as I can see, has growth substantially in past 3 years,
> while I receive the allocation, there is no one I know from the hostmaster
> team and in fact, I had huge debate with one of the hostmasters back then,
> elvis, strong argument, days and nights argument, I can tell you, it was
> not easy to get these allocations. And all the allocation I received was
> according to the policy.

It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by
the same person that has initiated this proposal.

Elvis made the proposal, yes, and Elvis was one of the hostmaster processed our application, yes.

However, Elvis was NOT the only person process our application, large request are processed by hostmaster team rather than single hostmaster, and I can add this(Elvis might as well agree)to my personal opinion, he was the most unfriendly hostmaster we happen to come across at that time, So do not make it personal.

And as far as I concern, Elvis are making this proposal at good of whole community, there is no his personal interest involved, as he is an IP broker now, passing this proposal only means less business for him but not more business.

> You are accusing me "abuse", please provide evident since you are doing it
> in a public space.

That is my opinion based on the facts that I already mentioned.

Again, Abuse is an strong statement and it is not an simple "opinion". in which fact you have mentioned that leads to this conclusion?

> And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in any
> of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much
> double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your
> allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, please
> help to clarify).

Well, maybe it was not your case since you were showing a very
convincing growth exactly in the last year. Unlike you the company I
worked for was just a simple corporation with over 5000 employees, over
2 million subscribers and yes, I was denied a /13, only received about
half and that was after the thorough analysis. Below is the mail I
received confirming this:

> Because of the size, the request will go now through an approval
> process that involves the RIPE NCC management. This may take up
> to 3 working days.
> This means that the size of the request is not approved yet and
> might change depending on the outcome of the approval process.
>
> If there are any questions do please let me know.
>
> Regards,
>
>David Hilario
>RIPE NCC IP Resource Analyst

Ripe NCC management does not equal to RIPE board, making accusation on board involved in the registration service is totally false.

> More over, receiving large IP space does not equal to large ISP, I think
> this is just common knowledge. There are tons of IP intensive service out
> there in which has nothing to do with individual customers(CDN for example).
>
> Hope this clarify things and the subject should not be bought up at
> personal level again.

Yes, right, I'm sure you make a good point and everything is reasonable.
Sorry for being unable to understand your arguments.

> Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and
> not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify this
> to the community because this is not the first time personally attack
> happening here(and not just to me and my company).

I don't seek anyone's agreement, I'm presenting facts and raising
questions. The final one would be: Is this policy going to protect the
value of the assets that were obtained through abuse in the past ?

Again, this policy to best of my knowledge has nothing to do with the value of the IP address, it is technical place rather commercial market place, the current intention of last /8 is based on future transition of the internet to IPv6, and behaviour like open/close LIR in order to obtain as much as possible /22 defeat such intention, so it more of a patch up to the current policy rather putting any real change there.(my view on this we should have it done at transfer policy so we do not need to have to discuss it here).

Yours,
Ciprian Nica

--
Kind regards.
Lu

This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above.
It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use
of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the
intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and
e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this
message and including the text of the transmission received.