Dear Sasha, all, The concern you raise was addressed back in 2009, when the RIPE community was discussing three different last /8 policy proposals (the proposals 2008-06, 2009-3 and 2009-04). All three policy proposals allowed one single /22 allocation per LIR.
Back then the RIPE NCC received legal advice from external legal advisers with an expertise in EU Competition Law. The advise was based on the assumption that each new LIR would receive no more than a single /22. The RIPE NCC had shared this legal advise with the RIPE community and has presented on it at RIPE 59 in Lisbon: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2009-October/004743.html https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20091006/c9513ab7/attachment.pdf http://ripe59.ripe.net/presentations/pawlik-final-shalsh-8.pdf The outcome of the advise was the following: "The proposed final /8 policies are likely to comply with the conditions of article 81(3) EC: they contribute to optimising distribution and/or to promoting technical progress; in so doing, they benefit consumers; they do not appear to impose restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of their objective of optimising the usage of the IPv4 unallocated pool; and they do not eliminate competition in respect of the IPv4 unallocated pool. [...] For future reference, [...] any final /8 policy adopted by the RIPE Community and implemented by RIPE NCC should: (i) continue to be adopted by means of the bottom-up, consensus driven open policy development process of the RIPE Community; (ii) be as open as possible (i.e., involve as many LIRs as possible, which is the case for the currently proposed policies); and (iii) be applied in a clear non-discriminatory manner, and third parties (new LIRs) should have fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access." I would like to highlight that since 2009 article 81(3) has been renumbered to 101(3) of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, but the content remains the same: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:12008E101 I hope this helps. Kind regards, Athina Fragkouli Head of Legal RIPE NCC > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Policy Proposal (Locking > Down the Final /8 Policy) > Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 14:44:14 +0100 > From: Sascha Luck [ml] <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > > > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 02:05:26PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote: >>A new RIPE Policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" >>is now available for discussion. >> >>The goal of this proposal is to limit IPv4 from the remaining address pool >>to one /22 per LIR (regardless of how it was received). >>These âfinal /22â allocations will receive a separate status with >>several restrictions: >> >>- These allocation are not transferrable >>- LIRs may only retain one final /22 following a merger or acquisition >>- Sub-allocations are not possible >>- Reverse delegation authority can not delegated to another party > > I would like to see a statement from NCC Legal on the legality of > any of these proposals with particular emphasis on EU "barrier to > entry" legislation. > > rgds, > Sascha Luck > > > >
