[LACNIC/Politicas] Nova versão da proposta LAC-2018-2

Wed Mar 7 14:24:53 BRT 2018

Hello Mike, hope it is all fine.

I appreciate your comments and will make mines bellow, and in english to avoid
possible translations problems

> I am against this policy because it seeks to impose a waiting period between
> a 2.3.2.17 transfer and a subsequent 2.3.2.18 transfer.

understood.

> This waiting period is absent at other ipv4-trading RIRs because those RIRs
> have learned from their experiences that company mergers and acquisitions by
> their very nature often lead to redundant resources. These could be offices,
> equipment, or IPv4 address blocks. In fact, one of the reasons behind most
> mergers is an attempt to streamline the resulting entity through more
> efficient usage of the pooled resources.  If a merged entity's enhanced
> efficiency frees up IPv4 address space, why should we want to punish this
> efficiency?

the waiting period is for one year and I know, by experience, that if company A 
buys company B, and under 2.3.2.17 wants to transfer ip resources from one to 
the other, we should assume company A is "running" and ip resources are in use.

according to your thoughts, company B would know, just after acquisition, that a 
sum of ip resources could be freed up and transfered.
reality shows that would take much more time.

company B would start merging network infra, systems, customers etc and this 
takes time.

probably after a year or so, they would have a set of ip resources free and then 
could transfer if they want, as the waiting period would be over by them.

this item tries to avoid companies buying others just for the ip resources to 
make money and trying to justify the transfer under 2.3.2.17.

similar protection is already in place in the 2.3.2.18 and I see no reason we 
should no have that in the 2.3.2.17.

> ARIN in particular does many 8.2 (merger and acquisition transfers, like
> 2.3.2.17) simultaneously with 8.3 (Specified Transfers like 2.3.2.18) because
> in many cases the sellers of addresses need to do some initial paperwork to
> get the addresses into the name of the surviving, selling entity.  So a
> merger done five years ago, without notifying ARIN at that time, would need
> to have an 8.2 transfer be performed before any sale of addresses via an 8.3
> transfer can be processed.  If ARIN had this proposed (LAC-2018-2) rule in
> place, these transfers would not be allowed, as the preliminary merger and
> acquisition transfer would then have to be followed by a yearlong wait before
> the intended transfer can occur.

understand but each region has its particularities.

> In addition, this proposal contains multiple changes which should really be
> considered separately. First, it seeks to remove legacy identification after
> 2.3.2.17 transfers. Why should this be?

this is already in place in the 2.3.2.18 and also the lacnic bylaws.
I am just trying to put it in the place it should be: in policies and not only 
in the bylaws.

> Second, it imposes the unusual waiting period between a 2.3.2.17 transfer and
> a subsequent 2.3.2.18 transfer, and I have mentioned my objection to this.
> 
> Third, it seeks to impose a one-year waiting period on LACNIC or country NIC
> allocations or assignments to members seeking to execute a 2.3.2.17 transfer
> after receiving those blocks.  Since there are no available blocks for
> assignment except for pools reserved for new entrants, is this a policy
> seeking to prevent new entrants from receiving addresses, then merging
> together to pool those addresses with other new entrants?  And wouldn't
> consistency with 2.3.2.18.9 require a three year wait?

lets assume an organization applies for an ipv4 address block, send all 
documentation and justification and receive what was requested.

the organization has a concrete and solid business plan and it is not very 
likely to be sold in a very short time after the allocation.

even if that happened, I see two scenarios:

- the organization didn't have time the renumber and ip addresses allocated are 
not in use yet, and it would not be a problem to hold those new ip addresses for 
a while, after all, the organization was bought not for the ip resources but for 
their value in infra, customers, services, etc and those will merge into the 
buying organization in time to come.

- the organization had already started to use, and being realistic, this would 
be after 3 to 5 months after allocation in average, and if that is the case, the 
buying organization would have to wait like 7 to 9 months before register the 
transfer that wold not be a problem (and was you have mentioned, this type of 
situations happens. you mentioned above cases in ARIN region where organizations 
are bought and takes them time to have all paperwork ready to ask for the 
transfer and they still use the resources)

> The proposal asks for "consistency"  between 2.3.2.17 and 2.3.2.18 but
> provides no reasons why these two sections, which define procedures for
> completely different processes, should be consistent.

both cases are related to transfers of ip resources... consistence seemed like 
important to me.

Best regards
Ricardo

> The proposal references other documents but only identifies one, the LACNIC
> Bylaws, with claims that these documents provide policy guidance. I think
> these should be explicitly identified, and reasons why policy should yield to
> these documents should be provided.
> 
> Regards, Mike Burns
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Politicas
> [mailto:politicas-bounces at lacnic.net] On Behalf Of info-politicas at lacnic.net 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 10:07 AM To: politicas at lacnic.net Subject:
> [LACNIC/Politicas] Nova versão da proposta LAC-2018-2
> 
> [Português abaixo] [English below]
> 
> Estimados suscriptores de la lista de políticas de LACNIC,
> 
> La propuesta LAC-2018-2 ha pasado de la versión 1 a la versión 2
> 
> Título: Actualización de la política sobre transferencias por
> fusión/adquisición de empresas
> 
> Resumen: Propuesta para añadir algunos puntos presentes en la política de
> transferencias 2.3.2.18 y que, por razones de coherencia, también deberían
> figurar en la política 2.3.2.17.
> 
> Para ver el detalle ingrese en: 
> https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-2
> 
> Los comentarios y los puntos de vista aportados por la comunidad son vitales
> para el correcto desarrollo del proceso de la propuestas - ¿Apoya usted o se
> opone a esta nueva versión de la propuesta? - ¿Ve alguna desventaja en esta
> nueva versión de la propuesta? - ¿Qué cambios podrían hacerse a esta nueva
> versión de la propuesta para que sea más eficaz?
> 
> 
> Por más información contacte a info-politicas at lacnic.net Saludos cordiales,
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> 
Prezados assinantes da lista de políticas de LACNIC,
> 
> A proposta LAC-2018-2 tem passado da versão 1 para a versão 2
> 
> Título: Atualização política de transferências por compra/fusão de empresas
> 
> Resumo: Proposta para adicionar alguns pontos presentes na política de
> transferência 2.3.2.18 e que por questão de coerência deveria estar também
> presentes na política 2.3.2.17.
> 
> Para ver o detalhe acesse: 
> https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-2
> 
> Os comentários e os pontos de vista aportados pela comunidade são vitais para
> o bom desenvolvimento do processo das propostas - Você está a favor ou em
> contra desta nova versão  da proposta?- Vê alguma desvantagem nesta nova
> versão  da proposta?
> 
> - Que mudanças poderiam ser feitas à esta nova versão  da proposta para que
> seja mais eficaz?
> 
> Por mais informações entre em contato conosco através do e-mail: 
> info-politicas at lacnic.net.
> 
> Atenciosamente, 
> ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>  Dear LACNIC Policy List subscribers,
> 
> Proposal LAC-2018-2 has been updated from version 1 to version 2
> 
> Title: Update the policy on transfers due to mergers/acquisitions
> 
> Summary: Proposal to add some items included in transfer policy 2.3.2.18
> which, for consistency, should also be included in policy 2.3.2.17.
> 
> To see the details, please click on: 
> https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2018-2
> 
> The community's comments and opinions are essential to the proper functioning
> of the policy development process. - Do you support this new version of the
> proposal or are you against it? - Do you think this new version of the
> proposal has any drawbacks? - What changes could be made to this new version
> of the proposal to make it more effective?
> 
> For further information, please contact info-politicas at lacnic.net Kind
> regards,  -- LACNIC - Registro de Endereçamento da Internet para a América
> Latina e o Caribe Rambla Rep. de México 6125, CP 11400 Montevidéu-Uruguai 
> Teléfono: +598 2604 22 22 www.lacnic.net
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Politicas mailing list 
> Politicas at lacnic.net https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
> 
> _______________________________________________ Politicas mailing list 
> Politicas at lacnic.net https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
> 