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. 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. To give an indication, the damage of a diner with 7 people at the MASH Penthouse at the RIPE72 venue can be more expensive ... Thanks for the feedback. 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 -- <http://v4escrow.net> 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:
