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

Wed May 9 09:11:15 BRT 2018

Hola Juan, que tal?
Gracias por los comentarios. Muy importantes y valiosos.
Estoy estudiando una versión mejorada considerando todos los aportes.
Tan pronto la tenga se la envío a la lista

un abrazo

Ricardo Patara

On 09/05/2018 08:49, Juan Alejo Peirano wrote:
> 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
>>
> 
> 