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

Hi,

> A good point and one that hadn't occurred to me. If this was to
> be interpreted as "must make assignments", would this proposal
> even be necessary? Everyone receiving resources and immediately
> transferring them would be in violation of the policy and,
> strictly speaking, all transfers  of this kind that have already
> happened would be invalid?


My argument was mainly to point out that this behaviour is against the spirit of the policy, in response to:

> So, yes, an assumption that one can join the NCC now and get a /22 with the intent to "sell" it is reasonable.

But yes, if no assignments happened at all I agree that the allocation would not be according to policy. However, people trying to cheat the system could just make fake assignments for a short period of time and then they would strictly speaking comply with the policy. They would still be dishonest though, which is why I feel that we shouldn't take this practice into account when writing new policy.

If you want to look up the history of this, here is the message from Tore when he introduced that line in the policy: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-August/008155.html

Cheers,
Sander