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

What from this quotation is? Please give me a link.
And what statement exactly of the current policy is abusing?

Also I would like to receive concrete answer to the question:
Why using multiple /22's for own company is not abusing but selling is abusing?

If anybody from members want to forbid /22 selling let's forbid multiple /22 receiving at all!

It would be fair regarding all other members!

And because current proposal REMAINS hole for receiving ANY number of /22 for own company I have all reasons to think that
current proposal has it's ONLY aim to make life harder for members that want to sell their /22's.

23.04.2015, 16:12, "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net>:
>  Hi,
>
>  On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 04:05:46PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
>>   OK. Let's it's welcome side effect.
>>
>>   Please answer me the following question:
>>
>>   What reasoning (not purpose) has current proposal?
>  "The RIPE NCC discovered that people are abusing the current policy"
>
>  Gert Doering
>          -- APWG chair
>  --
>  have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
>  SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
>  Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
>  D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
>  Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

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