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&A 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&A, 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-bounces@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&As (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&As 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&As 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:elvis@V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@V4Escrow.net> Mobile: +1 (702) 970 0921
Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in:
