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

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015, at 15:46, Jens Ott - Opteamax GmbH wrote:
> So you agree my initial reply that actually the change does not go far
> enough, it'd be better to completely prohibited selling IP (v4) and
> instead enforce withdrawing of not announced IP-Space aand returning
> it into the pool?
> 
> That way I am pretty sure we could quickly loosen the current /8
> policy and return to a policy allowing requests of more then one /22
> if need is shown .... and need may NOT be selling, but that'd be
> forbidden anyway then ;)

While some people agree with the concept, I'm not sure that the
community in its whole (or majority) will agree with rolling-back
several years of (already-established) policies. This definitely needs
more discussion (maybe during a meeting):
 - restore needs-based allocation (which has been "abolished" in order
 to legitimate already widespread but not really appreciated practice-
 lying about "needs" and "use")
 - soften the "last /8" policy - between 2010 and now the situation
 changed, and things will change even more in the upcoming years. Not to
 mention that now we have some real-life experience.