On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 02:51:16PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 03:26:34PM +0200, Piotr Strzyzewski via > address-policy-wg wrote: >>> >>> Except when those other policies detract from the main one. If we can't >>> maintain an accurate registry, then what's the point? >> >> IMHO, this is not the case here. Let's try not to fall in the false >> dilemma here. > > But it is the case... AFAICT, the only "sanction" a RIR has > available for any party trading in legacy resources (and refusing > to comply with orders to "hand them over") is to refuse > to provide registry service for those. That won't stop > transfers but will lead to those resources become unregistered > or, even worse, incorrectly registered.
Argument against has been already mentioned by Mike Burns. You can find it here: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2019-July/012962.html >>This situation pertains to all transfers, and sometimes a 10 year lease is just a 10 year lease, when it's paid monthly. But as for disguising legacy sales by doing them in this manner, you are quite mistaken. Nobody is spending $20 per address and then not having his ownership recorded in Whois. Or virtually nobody. Nobody I know, and I have done over 750 transfers beginning in the early 2000s. If the buyer doesn't get recorded, there is nothing but fighting in court to prevent the subsequent re-sale of the block by the registrant. No buyer wants to risk waking up to find "his" block is now registered to somebody else in Whois, and the original registrant absconded with the money and disappeared.<< Piotr -- Piotr Strzyżewski Silesian University of Technology, Computer Centre Gliwice, Poland
