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

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi.
>
> I think there is 2015-01 and it is enough to prevent reselling for
> undistributed 185./8 and others proposals make more problems for all -
> members, RIPE stuff, member's customers. E.g. is multiple accoutns
> when executive board suspend it and then asked to vote to allow it
> again. The IPs aren't burn (it is not oil or gas) even some one sell
> it. Simply the owner is some LIR but not the NCC. May be it will
> increase the price, no more. But the NCC wants to have exclusive
> rights to sell it (but RIPE is not organisation to make profit or I am
> wrong? :) ) and creates new proposals.
>

You are wrong in the sense of "not even wrong".

1) It's not about 185/8
2) It's not "burning" as in setting fire to something, but as in further
reducing the available address space for registration.
3) You've got the whole "ownership" thing mixed up.
4) You've got the whole "rights to sell" thing mixed up.
5) You've got the whole "make profit" thing mixed up.

-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160620/2c4b28cd/attachment.html>