[address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)

>> Alright then, for the sake of argument I'll oppose until I see some
>> convincing numbers. Back in the original last /8 discussion the rationale
>> for choosing a /22 was that it would get us about 16k final allocations,
>> or 1 for every NCC member and room for the membership to double in size.
> we need to move away from this idea of how to expand the RIPE NCC
> membership and think more in terms of how to serve the RIPE community.

while i definitely agree with your statement, i that is not how i took
remco's comment.

i see the final /8 policy (i as an author of the equivalent in apnic) as
a fairness issue, trying to ensure there is space for new entrants,
after we old hogs gobbled so much of it up.

randy