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

Wed Mar 7 14:25:29 BRT 2018

> nice, well done,

thanks ;-)


> I have a problem with the log in password at LACNIC list, i will resolve it
> later on
> 
> Daniel Miroli IPTrading.com +1-855-478-7233 Ext. 109
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---- On Wed, 07 Mar 2018 08:12:07 -0800 Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote ----
> 
> Hello list and sorry that it's in English,
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>