[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 01:35:49PM +0300, Storch Matei wrote:
>
>Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current
>LIRs because it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the
>membership fee to be lowered.  Just do 179 (transferred in the
>last eight months) times 2000 euros setup fee alone. It's an
>important chunk of change in my opinion, and it is in the
>current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in.

Financial dis-/advantages to the NCC are not in-scope for
address policy -well, unless its survival is threatened ;)-

>Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it
>should be enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of
>this policy. Otherwise, from my point of view, it would be a
>"change of the rules during the game" and it would have
>retroactive effects - which is not ok.

This is also the (only) reason why I oppose this proposal. It
sets a precedent for ex post facto rule changes which is, IMO,
dangerous, especially in light of other appetites for stricter
IPv4 rationing that have been voiced in this discussion.

rgds,
Sascha Luck