On Oct 21, 2016 13:42, "Sascha Luck [ml]" <apwg@c4inet.net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 01:17:32PM +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote:
>>>
>>> As for 2015-04, I oppose it as it tries yet again to bring M&A
>>> under policy regulation (s. 2.2) which the community has no
>>> business doing.
>>
>>
>> Please educate me why the community has no business doing this.
>> I would have thought that was well within scope for the address
>> policy.
>
>
> In market-based economies, M&As -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 society that business decisions are
> subject to the whim of random people on a mailing list. The
> 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.

I think our main problem here is that people think of IP space handed out by RIRs to be an asset just as a datacenter building or a router.
It is not, it is a right to use a resources given a few limitation (ncc member ship is one).
However pre RIR IP space might be considered an assets as I see it.

--- Roger J ---

> rgds,
> Sascha Luck
>