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

Hello,

I think your question is badly worded but answering it anyway, I do not 
want to restrict transfers of /22s from the "last /18".
I oppose this policy.

Regards,
Radu Gheorghiu

On 06/20/2016 12:16 PM, Gert Doering wrote:
> 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