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:[email protected]]
*Namens *Elvis Daniel Velea
*Verzonden:* woensdag 25 mei 2016 10:28
*Aan:* [email protected]
*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
--
<http://v4escrow.net>
Elvis Daniel Velea
Chief Executive Officer
E-mail:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Mobile: +1 (702) 970 0921
Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in:
