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

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Jim Reid <jim at rfc1035.com> wrote:

>
> > On 20 Jun 2016, at 09:04, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> >
> > But I'm close to giving up on this and calling a ban on further changes
> > to the IPv4 policy
>
> +1
>

I'm almost there.

In the early discussion phase, I was tending towards being against the
proposal being discussed, with a certain does of "meh, doesn't matter much".

But then all the extremely bad opposing non-arguments kindof have convinced
me that 2016-03 is needed, and should probably be implemented.

After that, though, I think further changes are unnecessary.



>
> A possible compromise might be a requirement for future IPv4 policy
> proposals to show that they do not disadvantage future participants or
> increase the burn rate of the remaining IPv4 pool. Same thing really.
>
>
How does one go about restricting future policy proposals?

-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160620/84584483/attachment.html>