[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Adrian Pitulac <adrian at idsys.ro> wrote:
>
>
> Jan, I think you should read my previous posts, I've come up with several
> arguments, none of which have been seriously discussed and analyzed.
>

I have read your arguments, and they have been previously discussed and
analyzed.


>
> Also FYI I've been reading the discussions here for a long time, and this
> intervention is my first because I see the same explanation again and again
> without no base.
>
> This should be a discussion on arguments not just a presentation of
> personal "default" denial of any change to policy. This is what I saw until
> now. I was under the impression that people here can start a discussion and
> analyze the *for* and *against* arguments until we reach a conclusion. Am I
> wrong?
>
>
Well, insofar that you yourself have not presented any thorough arguments
or analysis yourself, you are right.

But others have.

That you choose to disregard these arguments and analysis, is really your
problem, and your problem alone. Repeating your talking point does not
help, and it only makes your arguments look weaker.

Frankly, your arguments have made me even more certain that this policy
needs to be stopped, and the current policy has to stay in place to ensure
some opportunity for future entrants.

PS: My point of view directly disadvantages my employer, who could stand to
gain financially from the proposal, which allows for more stockpiling of
IPv4 resources for future scarcity.
-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160417/ba6f5c3d/attachment.html>