[address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)

>> You conveniently side-stepped answering the case I described.  Note
>> that I wrote "*solely* for the purpose of of getting a /22...".  In
>> that case there would be no customers to move or networks to merge.  I
>> would say it is incumbent upon you to justify that we should keep this
>> loophole as wide as a truck in the policy.
>>
>> The 24-month holding period puts a damper on this avenue of abuse
>> against the intention of the last /8 policy, and would put a little
>> bit more longevity into the availability of the resources under that
>> policy.  It may be that this diminishes your company's prospects of
>> near-future income, to which I would say that basing your buisness on
>> the abuse of something which is perceived as a common resource is
>> perhaps not worthy of so much sympathy?
>
> Again, unfounded personal attacks.

Please read that again.

I said "It may be..." (last paragraph above).

> Why do you have to analyze the person and not the idea.

The idea I beleive is section 2.2 in the 2015-04 proposal.
I beleive I have argued for its presence, by describing the abuse
against the last /8 policy we'd otherwise be widely open to.

> Who gives you the right to accuse make such allegations and
> what is the purpose of this?  Have I taken advantage of a
> loophole?

I beleive that if you read what I wrote earlier more carefully,
you would come to the conclusion that I have not made such a
claim.

However, you're strongly defending the continued presence of a
loophole in the policy as wide as a truck, permitting behaviour
such as described earlier.  I'd say it falls upon you to justify
why we should let status quo continue, where the stated intention
of the last /8 policy is widely open for ... circumvention.

Regards,

- Håvard