[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256


Hi all,

I do not support this proposal.


On 20/10/2015 17:33, Dickinson, Ian wrote:
> And now I've had the proper time to consider this, I agree with Remco
> and object to this proposal. We should stick to the approach that
> allows for new market entrants, and I don't see any value in
> artificially shortening this period.

Agreed, this last being the main reason to oppose the proposal but I agree
with many other reasons exposed, and in particular

- - LIRs created after /8 policy did have the information to take decisions
 and if they did not manage to cope with this, I do not consider future LIR
 creation should be compromised to please them,

- - uniform /22 distribution would be quite unfair and result in a big waste

IMHO A much more interesting proposal to ease access of small opérators (not
to say LIRs because LIRs are just distributors in my mind) would be to have 
the Ripe to regulate the transfer market via anonymization + fixed pricing
(have it equivalent to a LIR creation cost for a /22) or IP garbage 
collection.

Best regards,
Sylvain

- -- 
http://www.opdop.fr  -  mutualiser et interconnecter en coopérative
Opdop - Société Coopérative d'Interêt Collectif sous forme de SARL
sur IRC réseau geeknode #opdop - tél: 0950 31 54 74, 06 86 38 38 68
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iF4EAREIAAYFAlYnqWkACgkQJBGsD8mtnRGMnAEAjQUpMTKLmCzHLSAPSQIgFw4C
ubb4Sbgo5p3YkUhYV7gA/iLWKAHUsQrKCLWJcwDZdpsKOy3wYJTgCDfMOyQy2Xgd
=DGf8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----