There is a catch, 

20 LIRs cannot be merged into a single LIR of the new parent company, unless it has passed 2years from the /24 allocation date.

So after the merge, the new parent company still has to pay for 20 LIRs till the time /24 can be transferred,

Regards,

Arash

>>So merging a shell company with 20 LIRs, each with a /24, with the
parent company with a single LIR, allows those 20 /24s to be
registered with the single LIR of the parent company and closure of
the 20 LIRs.

On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 2:01 AM denis walker <ripedenis@gmail.com> wrote:

Colleagues

The Transfer Policy ripe-682 is so vague you can drive a train through
the holes in it. I have some questions that I hope someone can answer
before Christmas as I would like to propose an amendment to this
policy in the new year.

"Any legitimate resource holder is allowed to transfer"
What does 'legitimate' mean in this context? It is not defined in this
policy document. It is no use referring to a dictionary or even some
other policy document. It needs to be defined in this policy. If it
has no specific meaning in the context of this policy, then the word
should be removed.

My understanding of a 'policy document' is that it is self contained
and consistent. None of the terms:
-RIPE NCC Member
-LIR
-Resource holder
are defined anywhere in the Transfer Policy or ripe-733, IPv4
Allocation... A policy may be dependent on another policy being in
place. You cannot transfer a resource unless it has been allocated.
You cannot allocate a resource unless there is a RIPE NCC Member and
an LIR. But you should not have to backtrack through a whole sequence
of documents to find out what a term in this policy means. This policy
can only work if people understand 'commonly accepted' definitions of
these terms. But that is open to interpretation and mis-understanding.
That could make legal enforcement of, for example, restrictions more
difficult to apply.

[As a side issue I have just quickly read through a whole series of
documents and forms on becoming a RIPE NCC Member and getting
resources. In every document/form I found:
-Legal errors
-English grammar errors
-Procedural errors
-Webpage errors
The whole process is a complete mess and needs a serious Legal/Comms review.]

I found the definition of a Member in one document but nowhere have I
found any definition of LIR. These terms are so fundamental to all
these policies, to not define them leaves a massive hole in their
meaning and authority. These terms seem to be so interchangeable from
one paragraph to the next. In some places the wrong term is used.

ripe-733 says allocations are made to LIRs
ripe-682 says allocations are transferred to members
ripe-682 says transfer restrictions apply to resource holders

Then we have this document
https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/transfer-of-ip-addresses-and-as-numbers
which talks about 'hodership', another term not defined.

Then we have this document
https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/transfer-of-ip-addresses-and-as-numbers/transfers-in-the-ripe-ncc-service-region
that conflicts with the Transfer Policy.
It also refers to Members as organisations, again without any actual definition.

The above document says:
"Exception: For transfers between multiple LIR accounts belonging to
the same organisation, also referred to as consolidations, the 24
months restriction will only apply once after the resources were
received from the RIPE NCC or from another organisation."

This is NOT what the Transfer Policy says. The policy makes no mention
anywhere of consolidation. The only definition we have of a transfer
in any POLICY is this one line:
"Allocated resources may only be transferred to another RIPE NCC member."
This does not even make sense. A Member cannot 'hold' a resource.
Resources are held by Member LIRs. So if a resource is transferred to
a Member with 5 LIRs, which one receives it? Does it matter? Is it
whichever LIR the Member writes on the transfer request form?

Now a consolidation is not a transfer. In the policy a transfer is
defined as moving a resource to 'another Member'. So consolidating a
resource by moving it from one LIR to another LIR of the same Member
is by policy definition, not a transfer. So consolidation is not
subject to Transfer Restrictions because it is not a transfer.

So all the shell companies that have been set up this year to hoover
up the last /24s can now be merged with their parent company and then
all the /24s can be consolidated into one LIR. The other LIRs can then
be closed. Nothing in this policy document says a /24 allocation must
remain for 24 months with the LIR that it was allocated to. It says it
cannot be transferred, but mergers are allowed and consolidation is
not a transfer.

This is even confirmed in a procedural document ripe-758, Transfer of
Internet Number Resources... (which doesn't appear to be policy)
"Internet number resources that are subject to transfer restrictions
imposed by the RIPE Policy "RIPE Resource Transfer Policies", and that
are transferred due to a change in a member's business structure, must
either remain registered with the original LIR account or be
registered with a new LIR account."

So merging a shell company with 20 LIRs, each with a /24, with the
parent company with a single LIR, allows those 20 /24s to be
registered with the single LIR of the parent company and closure of
the 20 LIRs.

Also ripe-758 introduces yet another term, parties, without any
definition or clarity.

This whole transfer process is totally confused with contradictory,
inconsistent and poorly written documents and policies.

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG

--

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg

--

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg