[address-policy-wg] another way to achieve the original motives of post-exhaustion policy

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, Sander Steffann wrote:

> We are always very careful with linking policy to charging. We tried 
> that in the past and usually ran into some issues. If, however, the RIPE 
> NCC would adapt the charging scheme in this way then it would probably 
> make some policy proposals less relevant :)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I think this is however something that 
makes things a lot harder. It's like trying to do sports with your hands 
tied behind your back. Yes, you can probably get things done but it's a 
lot harder and usually results in a lot more work.

Well, can't we at least take that idea to the current policy proposals, 
that we don't talk about "LIRs who have received a post-exhaustion /22" 
but instead talking about "LIRs containing..." What's happened in the past 
is less interesting than current situation?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se