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

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 06:56:47PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:
> > This policy is not about "return allocations", but about reducing the
> > burn rate by reserving /22s for those who actually want to run a network
> > with it, instead of trade away quickly for a short gain.
>
> When an allocation is not transferable to another member, one day they need
> to be returned to RIPE NCC.

Yes.  But that's a side effect of not allowing transfers of these /22s.

Basically, the discussion *should* try to focus on this point, and not
run around the mill with non-sensical arguments.

 - do we want to restrict trading of "last /8 policy" /22s, yes or no?

If we want restrictions, then this will have consequences (like, if you
close your LIR and are not selling off the whole business, the /22 will
be returned).

If we want *no* restrictions, this will also have consequences - namely,
some (few) people making money based on resources other folks have set 
aside to be there for the long-term good of the RIPE region, which many 
others see as immoral and abusive.

But do not complain about the potential consequences, please just answer
the question.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160620/b17602d1/attachment.sig>