<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=NL link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>Hi Aleksei, <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>This has nothing to do with cost or payment per IP. <o:p></o:p> The policy is about keeping an accurate registry and not about how someone received the IP space in the past. <o:p></o:p>The community doesn’t set cost / price for the NCC, that is discussed during the AGM. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>PI is here in the RIPE region because for some reason people didn’t require the option to assign IP space to others, but only use the IP space for themselves (their infrastructure). <o:p></o:p>That is different than having PA space and being an LIR. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p> On top of that, some organisations aren’t allowed by legal reasons to become a member, but they still have the requirement to be provider independent. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Stating that LIR’s will be much worse off than owners of PI blocks is not true, because with the different status on the IP space, they have different rights / options. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>The main goal of the policy is to get the ‘under the table’ trading solved and keeping the registry accurate. <o:p></o:p>The policy doesn’t change anything about what the cost is for PI (historic or future) and any discussion about cost/pricing should be done in member discussion / AGM. <o:p></o:p>With this policy we will get the same transfer option for PI as we have for PA and that will allow us after this to go to a unified policy document just for transfers. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Please let me know if you have additional questions. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Regards,<o:p></o:p>Erik Bais<o:p></o:p>Author of 2014-02 <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'>Van: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Namens LeaderTelecom Ltd. Verzonden: maandag 4 augustus 2014 10:14 Aan: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2014072901004581] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer [...]<o:p></o:p></div></div><o:p> </o:p>Hello all, I don't support this proposal. This is Pandora's box. To get 1024 IPs for now company can register LIR and pay to RIPE 2000 eur + 1600 eur annually. If same company will transfer PI, then they will pay to RIPE only 50 eur. LIR's will be in much worse situation than owners of PI-networks. We can apply proposal if we will increase payment for PI-networks after transfer. For example, 1000 eur annually for each PI resource. In this situation new LIRs and owners of PI-network will pay into RIPE NCC similar payments. -- Aleksei Ivanov LeaderTelecom <o:p></o:p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'> On 28 Jul 2014, at 20:18, Gert Doering <<a href="mailto:gert@space.net">gert@space.net</a>> wrote: > Dear AP WG, > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: >> The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02, >> "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" has been published. The impact analysis >> that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. >> >> >> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: >> >> <a href="https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02" target="_blank" title="https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02">https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02</a> >> >> and the draft document at: >> >> <a href="https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft" target="_blank" title="https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft">https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft</a> > > > We could use a bit more input on this proposal. We have one clear > statement of support, and one mail that puts up some questions while not > taking a clear pro/con position - and that is not enough to declare > anything except "needs more time" at the end of review phase. > > So, tell me your thoughts, please. > > thanks, > > Gert Doering, > APWG chair > > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 <o:p></o:p></div></div></body></html>