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

Hi Sacha,

On 11/05/15 19:00, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
> In light of this, I will oppose this proposal. For what that will
> turn out to be worth. 
if I understand correctly, you are opposing to the RIPE NCC's planned 
implementation of this proposal (under the terms and understanding of 
this Impact Analysis), is that correct?

What If once the policy proposal would become policy and would be 
implemented, _all all allocations made after the implementation date_ 
will need to have a 2 years 'buffer' - would that be acceptable?

I just want to clearly understand the reason for opposing.

regards,
Elvis
-- 
<http://v4escrow.net> 	


  Elvis Daniel Velea


    Chief Executive Officer

Email: elvis at V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis at v4escrow.net>
US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914
EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 1914

Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in:

This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain 
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have 
received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and 
delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150511/55ad777a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logo.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5043 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150511/55ad777a/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1.png
Type: image/png
Size: 11971 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150511/55ad777a/attachment-0001.png>