Hi, On 20/09/2013 14:27, Tore Anderson wrote:

Conservation is the natural behaviour in an environment of scarcity.

In such an environment the natural behaviour could also be that companies willing to protect their interest are ready to put money on the table to get as much ressource as they can afford. And LIRs could be tempted by selling these ressources without a need being properly justifying it. 2013-03 allows this. Yes it could look stupid if the game was over once the next /22 is filled. But... The transfer market allowing LIRs to transfer allocations, LIRs having such lucrative approach of ressource distribution could also expect to buy more ressources for clients having enough money. It looks quite obvious to me that in such conditions, small companies or non for profit organisations would have severe disadvantages, since the available stock would quite quickly disappear.

The transfer policy is in place already. If you oppose a commercial transfer market, 2013-03 is the wrong policy proposal to attack, it is really 2007-08 you should be going after.

OK, let me reword our position then. We do not oppose to the principle of allocation transfers despite we might not be in full accordance with its current terms. But we are not welcoming deregulation. The hurt being to be expected from the conjonction of the two. Here the discussion is about 2013-03, however we consider it in the global environment and allocation transfers is part of it. We believe that in this environment, 2013-03 is nocive. We do not want public IP ressources to become deluxe products.

Also, I think it is worth noting that "giving public resources away" is and has always been one of the (perhaps "the") primary functions of the NCC. This is true even when the recipient is a private sector LIR who might at a later time choose to sell the resource on the IPv4 market.

There we probably have a big point of divergence. But maybe I'm wrong. However I am quite conviced that I read somewhere that IP ressources did not belong to anybody, and one was not entitled to prevail of any possession rights over it. Wich means they cannot be sold, of course. So this always made me think that the idea of an IPv4 market in itself was in violation with Ripe's rules and policies. If I am wrong and this is not the case, I will deeply reconsider the legitimacy of a private structure, in which participate only private structures, to deal with public vital ressources.

This is how things are today. 2013-03 does not change it one way or the other.

Yes it does, because it says "ok guys, we're finished with controlling the use that is made with this public ressource, just take it and let the market play". And this will impact on transfer conditions also, since these were subject to article 5.3 about additional allocation validation, that disappears with 2013-03. Ripe NCC wouldn't have allocate a new space to a LIR which had wasted the previous one or could not properly explain of ressources we used. And this still is a requirement today for the Ripe to accept a transfer if I am not mistaking myself. This would be over with 2013-03, and this would allow transfers to be asked for tomorrow, that would not be asked for today.

If you want to prohibit private sector entities from being eligible from receiving resources from the NCC,

Of course not. Please.

Furthermore, depletion is a past event in the RIPE region. It cannot be "accelerated" (or "stopped"). The only thing that remains is the so-called "last /8" austerity pool, and as I've pointed out above, 2013-03 upholds the conservation policies covering this pool intact (1 /22 per LIR; 1 /24-/22 per IXP).

Depletion is a word. It is a fake. IPv4 needs proper regulation until we all live in an IPv6 world. This time has not come and in the meanwhile, /22s from last /8 *and transfers* will be the vital ressource for many. I believe free pricing of transfers is a shame, and I believe that 2013-03 drops control of allocation usage worsens its considerably. This is why I still oppose this resolution. Regards, Sylvain

On 22/09/2013 18:52, Gert Doering wrote:

Who is "our" and "we" here, specifically? On this list, *individuals* voice their opinions...

I don't think it matters who "our" and "we" are. Sylvain is speaking for himself. Nick

On 22/09/2013 18:52, Gert Doering wrote:

(Though I'm starting to get tempted to request full disclosure of anyone who is directly affiliated with a regional registry, as when judging consensus, I'm going to look very closely at contributions from RIR employees, board members, etc. from different regions that operate in a very different situation as far as remaining IPv4 address space is concerned.)

People who have relationships with other RIRs are part of the RIPE Community, so I don't think there are any formal grounds to dismiss their opinions when evaluating consensus. On the other hand, if someone who has a relationship with a RIR actively takes part in policy discussion in another RIR, it's easy to see how this could be seen as interference - particularly so if the person involved doesn't hold resources from or have any particular relationship to the other RIR. Difficult dilemma. I'd feel more comfortable if we could depend on peoples' tact and common sense when contributing outside their areas, rather than creating rules and guidelines to deal with the situation. The fewer rules, the better. If there are guidelines, they should be RIR organisational guidelines which apply to the RIR representatives rather than to the policy groups where they're contributing to. Nick

On 22/09/2013 22:28, Gert Doering wrote:

Please don't misunderstand me. I do not want to dismiss contributions from other RIRs' staff members, AC advisory boards, etc - to the contrary, looking at our policy proposals from the outside might bring aspects into view that we've just overlooked, and policy expertise coming from other backgrounds is welcome.

yep, exactly. It's a difficult balance to get right. Standard rules of common sense and diplomacy apply. Nick

On 23/09/2013 08:56, Roger Jørgensen wrote:

So far have I read the posts from "outside" RIPE land more as contributing than trying to influence.

So do I, since in the seek of a rought consensus the point is not of being a lot of people anyway, but to have evereyone's concerns properly exposed, understood, and evaluated. Regarding this I fear my very poor english doesn't help me to get perfectly understood, which in my opinion makes english native writers's rewording and explaning really welcome, wherever they stay. I would'nt restrict their contributions to that of course, but I consider this helpful in the discussions. And also, as Goert objected to me lately while I was speaking with "we" or "us" : "On this list, *individuals* voice their opinions..." so I think everybody's contribution is worth reading and understanding, whatever RIR they are related to (and how). Regarding the number of Ripe members, we do not have a very large participation on theses lists, so I believe that a voice making the effort to formulate a contribution is worth listening. Maybe even more carefully when it is from outside the region because it brings other's experience despite having no interest in this. Best regards, Sylvain

Hi Sylvain,

On 20/09/2013 14:27, Tore Anderson wrote:

...

Conservation is the natural behaviour in an environment of scarcity.

In such an environment the natural behaviour could also be that companies willing to protect their interest are ready to put money on the table to get as much ressource as they can afford.

I agree - when, and only when, the companies actually *need* the resource in the first place - precisely "to protect their interest". In this case, 2013-03 brings no change from today - such companies are eligible for the being a transfer recipient already. So the ones 2013-03 actually makes a difference for, are companies that have no need and no interest in the resource. What I do not understand, is why anyone would expect that a company that has no need and no interest in IPv4 address space would go out and buy some. Especially, considering that the market demand *dwarfs* the supply, these companies could not pick it them up "a dime a dozen", they would have actually outbid all of those companies that do *need* it - desperately. To me this behaviour seems completely irrational and thus completely unlikely to occur. It's kind of like buying milk if you're lactose intolerant or petrol if you don't have a car.

And LIRs could be tempted by selling these ressources without a need being properly justifying it.

(I am assuming we are talking about an LIR's assignment to its End User's here?) As above, why would you expect an End User to buy an assignment (in itself, this is completely OK by today's policy BTW) if he has no need for it?

2013-03 allows this. Yes it could look stupid if the game was over once the next /22 is filled. But...

The transfer market allowing LIRs to transfer allocations, LIRs having such lucrative approach of ressource distribution could also expect to buy more ressources for clients having enough money.

It looks quite obvious to me that in such conditions, small companies or non for profit organisations would have severe disadvantages, since the available stock would quite quickly disappear.

Yes, this is the natural outcome of a market. However, it is a natural outcome of *today's* market, it is not something brought on by 2013-03. It is already the case *today* that big and wealthy ISPs or corporations with lots of money to spend has a huge advantage over small and non-profit organisations. Today, the RIPE NCC does not make a "priority" list over organisations that are eligible for transfers. In other words, the RIPE NCC will do *nothing* to help the small/non-profit organisations to get what they need from the available market offerings before the big and wealthy ones gets to scoop up the rest. The small and non-profit organisations are on their own, and they are already today in a pretty hopeless situation.

We do not oppose to the principle of allocation transfers despite we might not be in full accordance with its current terms. But we are not welcoming deregulation.

The hurt being to be expected from the conjonction of the two. Here the discussion is about 2013-03, however we consider it in the global environment and allocation transfers is part of it.

We believe that in this environment, 2013-03 is nocive.

The only way I can see that 2013-03 would worsen the environment we already have, is if those that have no need for IPv4 address space suddenly starts wanting it and trying to buy it. I just do not see why that would happen. But - for the sake of the argument, let's say that it would happen. That there actually are LIRs, or organisations willing to be come LIRs, that 1) have no need for IPv4 addresses, yet 2) are willing to spend a lot of money on IPv4 addresses. These organisations would need to be *very* resourceful and motivated - keep in mind that they would not have to outbid only small and non-profit organisations, they would also need to outbid the state telcos and big ISPs etc. that do have both "need" *and* lots of money to spend. If these highly motivated and resourceful organisations really do exist, I do not see that they would be significantly hindered by today's "need" requirement in getting what they want. Creating need is easy. The only thing they would need to do is to find one or more organisations that *do* need address space, and make a deal to loan/lease (by assigning) the address space they do manage to buy on the market back to them - because once an LIR has deals and documentation in place to make assignments totalling N addresses, it has also "justified need" for receiving allocations totalling N addresses. Today, more than one year after the NCC ran out, it ought not to be difficult to find End Users willing to receive assignments. 97% of the demand isn't being met by the market. I'm convinced those that do need, but currently aren't getting any, would leap at the opportunity. So in summary I don't really see that our current policy can do much to stop such "non-needy" rich organisations from entering the market in the first place, and therefore I do not really see that 2013-03 would contribute much to opening the door for them significantly more than it already is. While it is true that under 2013-03 they wouldn't have to assign away the address space to End Users, if their motivation for entering the market is to make a profit, I would expect them to be planning to lease out anything they manage to get in anyway - which, as described above, is allowed today.

We do not want public IP ressources to become deluxe products.

I sympathise, but I am afraid that train left the platform as of 2007-08 and got up to cruising speed on 2012-09-14. The folks with the deepest pockets gets to fight over the resources, and the small and poor are Shit Outta Luck. That's the world we live in *today*, and I don't see how 2013-03 could reasonably be expected to worsen this situation.

There we probably have a big point of divergence. But maybe I'm wrong. However I am quite conviced that I read somewhere that IP ressources did not belong to anybody, and one was not entitled to prevail of any possession rights over it. Wich means they cannot be sold, of course.

So this always made me think that the idea of an IPv4 market in itself was in violation with Ripe's rules and policies.

If I am wrong and this is not the case, I will deeply reconsider the legitimacy of a private structure, in which participate only private structures, to deal with public vital ressources.

No, you are quite right. IPv4 addresses are not property in a legal sense. See Article 10.2 the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement (ripe-533). So in the case of an allocation transfer, what is being sold is not the addresses themselves, but the right to maintain the allocation - pursuant to the SSA and the RIPE Community's policies. I think of it in the same way that sometimes when a tenant that wants to move is permitted to transfer his tenancy contract to a new tenant; they don't transfer ownership of house/apartment itself, only the right to live there.

I believe free pricing of transfers is a shame, and I believe that 2013-03 drops control of allocation usage worsens its considerably.

This is why I still oppose this resolution.

I can empathise with you not wanting a situation where money and hard capitalism rules and the small players gets squished out. But that's what we have today, and I do not agree that 2013-03 will significantly change this for the worse (or better ). If you truly want to improve this situation, the only way to go about it that I can see is to submit a policy proposal that simply deletes the section titled "Transfers of Allocations". Such a proposal would not in conflict with 2013-03; "deregulating the market" is not one of its goals. FWIW, the only reason why "need" is being removed for transfers, is that when you remove "need" for assignments (which *is* the goal), "need" at the allocation level becomes a meaningless concept, because the latter builds on the former. Best regards, Tore Anderson

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 06:24:49PM +0200, Sylvain Vallerot wrote:

You are right, this is what this discussion is all about : documenting the needs is about assignments, which occurs between LIR and End Users. This is where conservation and needs-based policy make sens.

Assignments to end-users will likely continue to be "needs"-based. Owing to the very scarcity of the resource, a LIR has an interest to make the IPv4 space they still have last as long as possible (and, presumably, to sell it as dearly as possible, too) The Invisible Hand will take care of this one...

Might not happen (in a perfect world), but do we choose the right timing to open such a pandora's box here ?

It is *exactly* the right time. IPv4 is gone.

And again, for what benefit ? Just spare a little time on documentation.

Just to spare a *lot* of unproductive paperwork. Which, in all honesty, is 90% lies anyway. I want to run networks, not concoct documentation that will make a RA happy. rgds, Sascha Luck

Tore, Your message does not answer my concerns, unfortunately. I am not talking about my case because my particular case is of interest, but only to illustrate how LIRs have to face with some demanding customer who do not really care about fairness, but rather about survival in a situation of scarcity. On 24/09/2013 14:09, Tore Anderson wrote:

However, you can also point to the address policy when declining the request, by telling your client something along the lines of: «Giving you a /22 you do not need would be unfair to my future would-be customers, as I would have then have nothing to assign to them. The RIPE address policy mandates that the assignments I make are done fairly, thus I am not at liberty to assign you the /22 you are asking for».

While the fairness requirement in question is a subjective value judgement you will have to make for yourself,

Subjective is the word. And conservation goal being removed, and the requirement of justificating assignments being removed also, the LIR becomes in the very incomfortable situation of having to oppose "fair subjective" criteria to a client's request, without being able to back on a RIR's policy anymore. But besides that, I feel this would be a regretable abdication of its regulator role for the Ripe NCC, to authorize any LIR to make whatever they want with the remaining ressource. And because of the consequences this abdication may have on many companies or organisations that will have to face de-regulated behaviors despite we are in a situation of scarcity, I cannot help but consider such a decision will make us (the Ripe community) responsible for some tragic situations. I remember the question of Ripe's responsability had been raised some time ago, maybe it was at Ripe's 65 meeting, last year. I was about the role Ripe had to play, not only as a a private association with its LIR members voting for their interest, but as the owner of a monopolistic power to distribute a vital ressource. And I regret today, that such questions arises again, and so many easy +1 supports go to a proposal for even more deregulation in a crisis situation. I think we have a legitimacy problem for doing this. Best regards, Sylvain

Hi, On 24/09/2013 20:05, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:

On what possible grounds do you assume that our "+1" supports are EASY?

Because it's so short to write and not develop :-) +1 and you're done here. -1 requires long developments and a lot of repetition, as you may have noticed. But it is the game, OK, support is easier to formulate. This comes from the system of someone writing a proposal and this is a "positive" move, so going the counterway requires more writing (and may might seem counter-productive) while going the same direction obviously does not require to re-write the "pro" arguments that are already in the proposal. This is where I regret by the way, the assymetry between supporting and opposing arguments in the rationale.

You imply that only you have thought this through, and that those who just state that they agree have not. I find this unnecessarly offensive, that you cannot state your arguments without making such implication.

OK I must admit this is was bit rude, so please accept my apologies. But this was not intedned as personal offense, I appreciate when I am on the other side an just need to say +1 :-) Best regards, Sylvain

Hello all, +1 from me too Best regards George

Tore, On Sep 23, 2013, at 7:23 AM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:

What I do not understand, is why anyone would expect that a company that has no need and no interest in IPv4 address space would go out and buy some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculation Regards, -drc

* David Conrad

On Sep 23, 2013, at 7:23 AM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:

...

What I do not understand, is why anyone would expect that a company that has no need and no interest in IPv4 address space would go out and buy some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculation

We have a 24-month cooling-off period in our transfer policy where a recently received allocation may not be transferred further. I am not sure that I would agree that this is a «short or medium term» (as it says in the linked-to specification) investment horizon, when we're talking about IPv4. I believe this cooling-off period in itself works as a deterrence against some that would otherwise be interested in engaging in speculation, at least the short-term kind. Nevertheless, it would certainly be possible to engage in more long-term (24 months ++) speculation or "investment" into the IPv4 market. However, as the ulterior motive for any speculator/investor LIR is financial gain, I highly doubt that they would simply "sit on" their inventory for the 24 months required by policy. Rather, I think they would try to make them generate a revenue stream in that period - by leasing them out, for example. In doing so, they would actually be performing the core duty of any LIR and thus end up having "justified need" as valid as any other. While it is true that their End Users (i.e., the lessees) under 2013-03 would not require "need", I highly doubt that an organisation that do not have any need would be interested leasing IPv4 in the first place. There are no shortage of organisations that do have plenty of need in the region; those are the ones that would be willing to actually pay for leasing IPv4 in the first place. So what I think it all comes down to is that the IPv4 market under 2013-03 won't be significantly different from the IPv4 market we have today. Best regards, Tore Anderson

On 23/09/2013 21:41, Sascha Luck wrote:

Tbh, one of my motivations for supporting this proposal is that I would like to see IPv4 finally run out, because otherwise we will never see IPv6 deployment take off...

Sasha, IPv4 will, undoubtedly, eventually run out. The question is, is it going to be a soft landing for everybody, or a brutal crash. Landing is usually not an operation during which one pushes motors and invite passengers to detach seatbelts. For everyone's safety I would expect from Ripe NCC, that this process happens in an as controlled as possible manner, requiring everyone's care and self-discipline, garbage-collecting as much unused ressources as possible for those who need them, and requiring every one to be more conservative than ever. We have a "low regime" since last /8 policy is on. But what is that fantasy all of a sudden, to relax measures that had been ruling or everyday life since ages ? I understand your wish : when landing is approaching I just can't wait and I want it to be done because of some irrational fear deep inside. But much more than I want to urge this, I want the pilot to stay calm, everybody to sit and be quite, and nobody gets hurt. Best regards, Sylvain

On Tuesday, September 24, 2013, Randy Bush wrote:

...

IPv4 will, undoubtedly, eventually run out.

ipv4 will be around after everyone on this list today is retired.

Very good point. I can hate it - but I would not bet much on you beeing wrong - even if I am going to retire a few years after you. (...)

we would like it if the registries acted as registries, i.e. recorded accurately who controls/owns what address space. we thought that was their primary responsibility

Fully agree. the registry system has a choice. it can make it difficult for users

to register, transfer, sauté, whatever address space, in which case they have some chance at a reasonable level of accuracy in their registries, or they can make it difficult. in the latter case, they will become vestigial organs whose function we will soon not even be able to remember. and we sure as heck won't be sending money to them.

the choice is ours. today, dealing with the registries' petty rules and bureaucracy is a major pita. this policy proposal tries to make it easier.

Since the start of my first encounter with the RIR Ripe 20 years ago we have gradualy reduced the documentation to demonstrate the need for addressess (have had to send receipts for equipment and such a couple times - we do not do that anymore) - thus there is more trust in the LIRs self assesment of need than it used to be. I think the important shift now is that this proposal actualy transfers the responsibility for conservation fully to the LIR - much in the same way as the responsibility for aggregation has been with the LIR for years. (in the end of 80s the central registry even tried to look after aggregation by delivering a then class B - now /16 instead of 4 class C /24) I would argue that we have a strong tradition to move in the direction of deregulation ad more trust in the LIR in this region

it really makes small difference what we choose. the internet will route around whatever impediments we place. it's a big river now.

Right. It is probably fairly easy to transfer IP Addressess from company A to B in most regions trough other means : company -A forms subcidiary A-registry ltd. A-registry Ltd is sold to B and then merged with B. Just is slightly more expensive and keeps the lawyers busy. Actualy - in my country I think I could to the legal work myself - its not that complicated. (and i have a real life example for a /8 that has made its way from Norway in the RIPE region to USA in arin Arin region this way - in a slightly more complicated manner with a few more steps). A side effect of allowing addresses to be more or less freely tranfered is that it could actualy bring more addresses to the market - when early adopers figure out that they can run their entire corporate/governmet network on private addresses between a NAT keeping only their servers offering public services on public addresses - the same way as most companies has had to do for years. As soon as the market price is higher than the cost to redesign and renumber this will start to happen. We should probably take this further and split the policy in 3: - a clear registration policy that applies to everybody and requires addresses to be registered - a transfer policy - focusing on proper identification and authorisation of transfers - an assignment policy for the last /8 from the RIR and whatever address space was returned I belive that if we want to have _need_ included in the policies it should be in the last two - and we need to come up with a needs criteria and documentation of such that can be audited by an independent party - if we want theese to have some real world legitimacy. I think.

randy

- hph PS: At the last ICANN meeting the US GAC representative read a long prepared statement on freedom and as little regulation as possible. -- Hans Petter Holen Mobile +47 45 06 60 54 | hph@oslo.net | http://hph.oslo.net

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Sylvain Vallerot wrote:

IPv4 will, undoubtedly, eventually run out. The question is, is it going to be a soft landing for everybody, or a brutal crash.

We have a "low regime" since last /8 policy is on. But what is that fantasy all of a sudden, to relax measures that had been ruling or everyday life since ages ?

Right now, the only thing you need to do to get a /22 out of that /8 is to do a little administration and pay money to RIPE. I don't understand why you think that having RIPE require pre-depletion style paperwork when this just doesn't reflect reality anymore is going to help anything. Individual LIRs just cannot hurt the global resource depletion rate by waste anymore, at least not in the RIPE region. Let's cut down on paperwork for everybody by accepting this policy. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se

I'm not sure why you think this will act as a deterrent to resource transfers, given that we all generally agree that increasing bureaucratic load will generally only serve to push transfer agreements underground.

i am not disagreeing (or agreeing, for that matter) with your assertion. i have a different question, though it is intuitively appealing. as a researcher, how might i measure such a change? how might i tell if some piece of address space has been transferred on the black market? randy

as a researcher, how might i measure such a change? how might i tell if some piece of address space has been transferred on the black market?

objectively? no way of telling for sure. Maybe use indicators like different ASN paths, different source asns, changes to registered object, etc? All very subjective though. Nick

Hi Randy & Nick,

...

Maybe use indicators like different ASN paths, different source asns, changes to registered object, etc? All very subjective though.

yep.

I've had several people ask me questions in regards to changes for PI space. Some even think that changing the Supporting LIR (PI) is sufficient to make the required changes at RIPE to transfer resources ... Others thought that an IP is an IP and that one was also allowed to sell PI space (under the current policy) ... None of the people that came to me were correctly upfront and shocked that what they were doing is not according to the policy or even not a transfer in the actual change of legal entity ... However the look on somebody their face is priceless if you tell them that the 'seller' can just resell the space to someone else as they still hold the ownership according to the registry. Using BGP data to tell if some got his space from the market might give a lot of false positives. Not all IP space that changes from AS, is also a permanent change ... (think about leased IP's, which doesn't require the registry to be updated on the ownership.) Personally I think it might be very hard to identify black market transfers ... especially since pimping ones prefixes to another AS for $$$ is common practice these days. Erik Bais

Randy, You can choose to not listen to whomever you want but this is right from the RIPE webpage. This text below does not state that a requirement to participate is that one must "operate in the RIPE region". Have a great weekend! -----Cathy ----------------------------------------- RIPE Community RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens) is a collaborative forum open to all parties interested in wide area IP networks in Europe and beyond. Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

David Farmer wrote:

...

+1 to every thing Sylvain said, and -1 to proposal.

does the university of minnesota operate in the ripe region, or just have global opinions on how everybody else should operate?

randy

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

...

You can choose to not listen to whomever you want but this is right from the RIPE webpage. This text below does not state that a requirement to participate is that one must "operate in the RIPE region".

RIPE Community RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens) is a collaborative forum open to all parties interested in wide area IP networks in Europe and beyond.

yep. but 'casting a vote' in a region where you have no presence is considered quite rude. only americans seem to do it, and are notorious, causing american opinions to be discounted in general.

one would think that especially arin advisory council members would exercise manners.

I don't disagree and that's exactly why I mostly read and almost never post on this list. Although when I was RIPE member I was still treated as if my vote was somehow less important than others. Nonetheless it is everyone's right to voice their opinion regardless.

see you in athens?

Nope I'll be in Vancouver though. Have fun in Athens! ----Cathy

Gert, I want to apologize. Please accept my sincere apology for any appearance of impropriety or other process concerns created by the following email. With hindsight, I should not have sent the following email. In particular I think "-1" on the proposal was inappropriate, as I don't represent any resources within the RIPE Region. I ask you and the WG chairs to please disregard it. However, I stand behind my other email questioning Tore characterization of Sylvain's opposition to the proposal. In particular Tore's suggestion that Sylvain was simply opposing transfers in general and not the changes to transfers resulting from this proposal. I appreciate your response to that email, but I remain unconvinced by Tore's arguments in this regard. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of the ARIN Advisory Council, a volunteer position involved in the ARIN Policy Development Process. In my day job, I'm Senior Network Design Engineer at the University of Minnesota, and I'm the University's technical representative to many networking organizations and fora. Again, I apologize and will not be making any further comment on this proposal. Thank you. On 9/20/13 15:21 , David Farmer wrote:

+1 to every thing Sylvain said, and -1 to proposal.

On 9/20/13 06:19 , Sylvain Vallerot wrote:

...

Hi all,

Unfortunately we do not support this new proposal, because conservation still is a goal to us, as IPv4 public ressource keeps being vital for many structures.

Deregulation + commercial transfer make the ressources governed by sole market, which we do not agree with. We consider Ripe NCC should stay in its regulation role and not give public ressources away to the private sector and market.

-- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer@umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================