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

Wed May 9 08:49:22 BRT 2018

Ricardo como estas?

Luego del evento, me gustaría hacer algunos comentarios de tu propuesta.
Me parece correcto que quieras aclarar textos sobre transferencias en el
caso de Adquisiciones/Fusiones de empresas, pero estoy en contra del texto
como esta propuesto. En particular con el punto 3 que agrega tu propuesta:

"- Los bloques y sub-bloques provenientes de una distribución o asignación
directa de LACNIC y sus NIR, ya sean iniciales o adicionales, no podrán ser
transferidos durante un período inferior a 1 año a partir de su fecha de
distribución o asignación."

Lo considero innecesario e inadecuado. Si este punto entra en vigencia, una
empresa que se fusiona/compra a otra, no podría cambiar la información en
LACNIC por un año, teniendo que mantener un registro inválido en el whois
(una empresa que ya no existe), a pesar de haber terminado todos los
requisitos legales. Creo que el punto 2 de tu propuesta sería suficiente
para evitar malos usos de los bloques.

A su vez, los comentarios realizados durante el foro, respecto a que los
procesos de fusión pueden durar mas de un año, son especulativos. LACNIC no
debe "asumir" acciones o tiempos establecidos fuera de su alcance. Me
parece bien considerar tiempos para ayudar a los miembros de la comunidad a
"ordenarse", pero no lo considero correcto como una consideración personal
para restringir actividades de los miembros ajenas a las actividades
esenciales del RIR.

En resumen, estaría de acuerdo con la propuesta si le quitas el punto 3
mencionado, pero me mantengo en contra si la propuesta queda como está.

Saludos!

El mié., 7 mar. 2018 a las 17:26, Ricardo Patara (<patara at registro.br>)
escribió:

> > 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 &
> lt;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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>

-- 
Juan Alejo Peirano