[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Jim
Thank you for sharing your viewpoint.
I'm not as knowledgeable as Sander to comment on possibility of the implementing and enforcing such policy, but not being able to do so, does not mean not to react to the policy which might not lead to its original intention. 

Let's think for a better way to make it work for everybody and allow more people on the earth to gain access to the Internet. 

Best Regards
-Payam


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Reid [mailto:jim at rfc1035.com] 
Sent: June 17, 2016 3:36 PM
To: Payam Poursaied <payam at rasana.net>
Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG List <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)


> On 17 Jun 2016, at 11:55, Payam Poursaied <payam at rasana.net> wrote:
> 
> why not to create and enforce
> policies which return the
> not-in-time-used-ip-blocks-beacuase-of-business-plans-change-and-market-cond
> itions-change o the free pool? 

Feel free to write up and submit a policy proposal along these lines since it seems to be something that matters to you.

IMO such a policy would be impractical, expensive to implement, easy to subvert and unlikely to result in much IPv4 space getting returned for reallocation. But maybe you know something I don’t.

Even if space was returned from this hypothetical policy, it still doesn’t resolve anything. We still run out of IPv4 because there’s not enough of it. At best, all your policy might achieve is delay complete v4 exhaustion at the NCC by a couple of weeks. Then what?