[address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations

In one of my prev. letter I listed calculations proving that reselling doesn't have big impact on IPv4 space exhaustion.

In such case WHAT IS THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT?

About PERSONAL wish of some people to play dirty tricks with /22 sellers?

23.04.2015, 15:07, "Vladimir Andreev" <vladimir at quick-soft.net>:
> I think firstly we should answer question "why" to introduce change to RIPE NCC policy. And only then "what" to change.
>
> In my opinion any change to policy should reflect expectation of community as a whole.
> Current propose doesn't change anything to the direction of improvement for community.
>
> If somebody doesn't like that other people do their business on reselling it's not a problem of community.
>
> 23.04.2015, 15:03, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike at swm.pp.se>:
>>  On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Infinity Telecom SRL wrote:
>>>   3. Make another LIR and move resource to the old LIR..  get NEW IPs,
>>>   never spammed and reasonable price.
>>  You're free to do this after the minimum time according to the proposed
>>  changed text. You just have to keep the LIR open for at least 24 months
>>  before you can transfer the /24 out of it and close the LIR.
>>
>>  It seems you're exactly one of the (ab)users of the current policy and you
>>  seem to think it's your right to continue with this. That's a valid
>>  opinion, but it's not shared with most other people here.
>>
>>  --
>>  Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se
>
> --
> With best regards, Vladimir Andreev
> General director, QuickSoft LLC
> Tel: +7 903 1750503

-- 
With best regards, Vladimir Andreev
General director, QuickSoft LLC
Tel: +7 903 1750503