On 16 Jul 2020, at 17:30, Daniel Suchy via members-discuss <members-discuss@ripe.net> wrote:
Hello, even if Dutch law doesn't allow memberships transfers, this problem can be solved easily. Just allow members to sign new SSA together with termination of existing SSA and *without* requirement of sign-up fee payment in such cases (where organisational change is properly documented).
This quite simple administrative procedure is not blocked by law, is blocked only by current internal rules (designed and proposed to us primary by NCC staff/board). And these can be changed/updated...
That is true. Re-reading the announcement from 2016, the intent at the time seems pretty clear https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2016-April/001031.html <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2016-April/001031.html>
The Board has decided on a measure to be taken immediately to deter the acquiring of /22s of address space with the sole purpose of transferring it to another legal entity. The RIPE NCC will therefore broaden the definition of policy transfers by including network acquisitions in the scope of the transfer policy.
I am sure the board would like to hear from the broader membership if this should be changed. My recommendation would be an holistic approach to the fee structure rather than exceptions from the main rule that may require interpretation.
Out of curiosity - how many hijacks were caused by fraudlent organisational changes and how many disputes over the resources was there due to this (relatively to total number of changes)?
What we have is the number of transfers that are disputed in any way: We have been tracking those cases for a number of years: 2015: 5 2016: 5 2017: 7 2018: 13 2019: 16 2020: 9 (so far) Some of these went to arbitration: https://www.ripe.net/about-us/legal/arbitration/summary-of-arbitration-rulin... <https://www.ripe.net/about-us/legal/arbitration/summary-of-arbitration-rulings> Regards, Hans Petter Holen Managing Director RIPE NCC