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

Hi,

On 23.04.2015 17:16, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote:
> The community should be objetive, and Im pretty sure it isnt.

I'm not so sure about that.

But maybe it would be better to promote RIPE PDP at your local user
groups (xNOG), so that more people get involved in the process.

If you just look at the member count of RIPE (and no, you do not have to
be a member to participate in the PDP) and the members involved in the
address policy working group there is a huge gap. So either people do
not care at all, or they can live with the policies that other members
of the community come up with. And IP Brokers ARE part of the community
if you like it or not.

>
> Why Elvis, a well know IP Broker from V4Escrow, proposed this instead
> of "Unused space should be returned to RIPE"???
>

Well I can only speak for myself. For me it is important that the RIPE
database is as accurate as possible. I'm pretty sure "Unused space
should be returned to RIPE" is just not gonna happen, even if this ends
up in a policy. When we allow transfers, we have a better chance that
the records are kept up to date.


Regards
André