[AusNOG] /20 Available

[Skeeve Stevens]

Jacob,

And I fully encourage you to get involved in the APNIC policy process.  We
have a deadline coming up in a week or so.  Feel free to propose any policy
you like.

Perhaps you should join sig-policy and start a conversation about the topic
if you feel passionate about it.
http://www.apnic.net/community/participate/join-discussions

Honestly though, this discussion has already really happened over the past
couple of years as we've been planning for the situation for a long time
now.


*

*
*Skeeve Stevens, CEO - *eintellego Pty Ltd
skeeve at eintellego.net ; www.eintellego.net

Phone: 1300 753 383; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/eintellego ;  <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/networkceoau ; blog: www.network-ceo.net

The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco – IBM - Brocade - Cloud
-----
Check out our Juniper promotion website!  eintellego.mx
Free Apple products during this promotion!!!


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Jacob Gardiner <jacob at jacobgardiner.com>wrote:

> Although I know there's always going to be loopholes when there's
> situations where companies start acquiring companies (Like what Microsoft
> did) in order to acquire assets, including IP resources, I think the
> process of buying and selling should probably be governed by the regional
> internet registry. Streamline the process as much as possible but properly
> evaluate the requirement for acquiring the IP addresses and make sure the
> motive isn't to simply buy and sell.
>
> Would it be tedious? Yes.
> Is it required? I think so, yes.
>
> IPv4 is going to be a sheetfight over the next few years unless trade is
> regulated. Those of us who will legitimately need more address space are
> doomed whilst these "brokers" who actually provide no value to what we do
> collect a cheque on the way through.
>
> If company X no longer requires the resources, surely their
> 'justification' for the allocation is no longer valid.
>
>
> On 21 January 2013 09:32, Scott Howard <scott at doc.net.au> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Skeeve Stevens <
>> skeeve+ausnog at eintellego.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Why is the parallel not good?
>>>
>>
>> Because it's completely pointless to compare two different products, both
>> of which have their own terms and conditions.  It's those terms and
>> conditions that will control things like whether you can transfer them
>> between entities, not the fact that they are both things that happen to be
>> used on the Internet.
>>
>> As it happens, both sets to terms and condition do happen to have rules
>> around transfer, but that doesn't make the analogy good.
>>
>>   Scott
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AusNOG mailing list
>> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
>> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jacob Gardiner
> @jacobgardiner <http://twitter.com/jacobgardiner>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20130121/acba0f13/attachment.html>