* Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il>
I think members opening additional LIR accounts goes against the spirit and history of RIPE.
Multiple LIR accounts aren't a problem, the way I see it... If, for whatever reason, an organisation wants to have multiple LIR accounts, then that is fine. I can think of several reasons why a single entity might want to have multiple LIR accounts, such as: - One account for each country the etity is operating in (no.acme, se.acme, fi.acme, ...) - Separate accounts for separate and possibly quite autonomous organisational units (eu.acme-3gpp, eu.acme-fttx, eu.acme-docsis, ...) - Ending up with accounts as a result of a merger or acquisition (us.hp, us.compaq, us.dec, ...)
I also believe RIPE should not grant multiple LIR accounts additional requests for /22s.
Agreed. This is the crux of the issue. Additional LIR accounts should not be a mechanism through which a single entity can circumvent address policy (or gain extra votes at the GM for that matter). I would therefore be supportive of the NCC starting to interpret and implement the «last /8» policy so that multiple LIRs managed by a single entity are collectively limited to a single /22 allocation (except in merger/acquisition cases where both LIRs have already received their last /22). It would also be important that "entity" isn't understood to simply mean "an entry in a country's organisation register", as that would leave a gaping and trivially exploitable loophole. Tore