[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis

I totally understand Gert for being annoyed by this kind of gmail/yahoo
e-mails.

Anna, if you have an opinion present it like I did and try to support it
with arguments. And use your company e-mail if you are representing an
LIR. Truth can't be shut up even by the devil's advocate.

But bringing up threats is simply stupid.

As Gert said, we're past the discussion phase and they will have to
reach a decision. The discussions should not be just about this policy
but we all should help solve problems that really exist and spend our
efforts efficiently.

Ciprian

On 6/10/2015 12:40 PM, Anna Bechcicki wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> I was watching for this discussion for a long time and decided to tell my opinion.
> 
> I really don't understand why the chair doesn't keep neutrality, supports one side and doesn't support another side. 
> Moreover, if chair reads any opinion in the contrary to this proposal, he finds flimsy arguments to disagree with it.
> 
> I won't be surprised, if you ban my account in this list, but I should ask you:
> Don't you think that someone can alert all other members about possibility to open multiple LIR accounts?
> 
> This can be done in case of current proposal acceptance in order to revenge for unfair decision.
> If this happens /8 will be exhausted NOT in 3-5 years but in 1 year (maybe less, maybe more). And it will be just awful.
> 
> Because of this we should take a fair decision and don't provoke retaliatory actions.
> 
> Do not consider this a threat but I really think we should keep care. 
> 
> 
> 
>      On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 9:28 AM, Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc at parsun.com> wrote:
>    
> 
>  Hi Saeed,
> 
> I oppose this proposal as it cannot stop the transfers but only delay it for
> 2 years for the new /22 blocks. 
> 
> Also transfer of IPv4 is not always equal to selling them.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Arash Naderpour
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>    
>