Hi Wilfried, I agree with you in both scenarios you described below. However, the reality of the current world is not that simple. IP addresses have a value, whether we want to acknowledge that fact or not. Some holders of PI address space have also realized that their PI space has some value, some will do the right thing and become LIRs in order to convert the PI to PA and then transfer the space. This policy proposal does not intend to address these users, the ones that will do the right thing by becoming a member and paying their share. Some others, will just transfer the space (by making a contract/document/agreement between them and an other party) or just allow someone else to use the address space without any notification to the RIPE NCC or updates in the registry. While these are the 'bad guys' and I do not thing we should be making policy changes to encourage them, by not making a policy change the registry will suffer. Not everyone will give up on their PI space if they do not use it anymore. Especially if they receive e-mails from people that want to 'rent/lease' their space for some money. I still don't know if it's a good thing to allow PI transfers and have individuals or companies that have only been paying 50E/year to transfer (sell) their PI space for a nice profit AND keep the registry as clean and updated as possible. OR.. give the RIPE NCC a mandate to start hunting those that violate the PI policy OR.. just pretend there's no problem and accept that the registry data may get outdated with time. my 2 cents, elvis On 24/04/14 17:24, Wilfried Woeber wrote:
A couple of observations, fwiw, and no, I'm not going to assess the role of brokers :-)
In general, let me start with the statement that I support all ideas to get rid of the different shapes and colours of address blocks. And that actually includes Legacy, as they are simply PI, just a tad older...
How to deal with moving address space from a PI assignment to a different party?
Well, I can see 2 *substantially* different scenarios:
1) the current holder of the address block doesn't need *all of it* any longer (and wants to get money from an interested party, but that's a side issue).
2) the current holder of the address block doesn't need *any* of the addresses any longer and wants to transfer the full block, in one chunk or in smaller pieces.
Nr. 1 is pretty easy, and possible already or really soon now: convert the PI block to PA, thus become an LIR, and proceed according to the rules.
Nr. 2 is more tricky. First of all, there was a good reason, why the resource was tightly bound to the requester. That background and assumption is also part of the basis for the low annual fee of €50,- per resource.
Now, as soon as the original criteria are no longer in place, the resource MUST be returned. A PI holder offering the *full block* to an interested party (for money or for free) obviously matches that provision. The resource needs to get returned to the pool.
So, why would we want to bend into this direction or that direction to create a special case for Nr. 2 to circumvent the existing policy? Just because some money is seen on the horizon?
Which gets me to the point of *not* supporting this proposal!
Wilfried.
-- <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Business Analyst Email: elvis@V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.
