[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 New Policy Proposal (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Having read the emails in this discussion I think that we are moving away
from the policy at hand ...  

This policy is not about reverting the final /8 policy ... 

The discussion is amusing to read and I like ( mind I say .. Love  ? ! ) to
read what the different opinions are in the community about moving faster or
reverting at all.. 
The policy is about closing a gap in the current procedure .. which we all
see is being abused against the original intent of the stated policy ... 

The reasoning for reservation of the /22's in the final /8 is for new LIR's
and current LIR's, to be able to get into the market and do v4 to v6 CGNAT
or something alike .. or at least get some kind of startup going on some IP
space ...  That was the original intent .. 

Currently what I see ( And with that, I'm sure that Elvis agrees with me.. )
as a broker you see people offering that /22 to the market in order to make
a quick buck. 
I don't mind .. An IPv4 resource is an IPv4 resource .. a transaction is a
transaction .... however this is against the original intent of the policy
...  

We have a 24 month waiting period for IPv4 space after being transferred, to
avoid 'stock piling' or to speculation .. What was not foreseen at that
time, is that new allocations should also fall under that same 24 month
waiting period ...  

This policy is to close the flipping of the /22´s to the market .. Even
setting up new LIR's and flipping the /22's and closing the LIR's again ... 
By having the /22's fall under the same 24 month waiting period, it will
make it more expensive for $parties to flip those resources ... Yes you will
still make money, but they have to hold the investment for 24 months at
least .. 
The profit they can/will make is gone for 2 years .. Now that might not stop
all speculation, but it will stop the majority of the people with the idea
of how to get rich quick, or at least make a quick buck .. 

I think that we should get this policy change in place and not because it
will drive more people to the actual broker market ... Because the real IP
brokers with actual inventory, can really do without these small prefixes in
the sales sheets for inventory .. 

The idea to close this, is because that flipping of the /22's of the final
/8 goes against the intent of the initial policy. 

Having said that, it is a Support +1 from me on this. 

Regards,
Erik Bais