Gert Doering wrote: > Nick Hilliard - "because it will create underground and unregistered > transfers of non-transferrable /22s" > > answered by Sander Steffan
I should have replied at the time because Sander's response was, in my opinion, inadequate: Sander Steffann wrote: > Not transferring the resources means keeping the LIR running to hold > them. If the LIR closes then the resources go back to the NCC and the > unregistered new holder will end up with empty hands. Both the cost > of keeping the LIR open (which will rise beyond the cost of "legally" > buying space after a few years) and the risk for the receiver to lose > their address space if the seller stops paying the NCC membership fee > are strong incentives to just stop trading in ALLOCATED FINAL space. This just means that the price stays higher, not that underground transfers / rentals won't happen or become a problem. > And M&A is still possible if people really want to move this address > space around, and that will make sure the registration is updated. This subverts the intention of 2016-03: 1. register company for £12 at the UK Companies Registration Office 2. open LIR in the name of this company 3. sell company to existing LIR and handle under M&A Net cost difference: £12. I.e. if you have it one way, the intent of the proposal is subverted; if you have it the other, the charter for the RIPE database is violated. Nick
