[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

> On 23 Oct 2016, at 01:31, Arash Naderpour <arash_mpc at parsun.com> wrote:
> 
> Luckily we still have an /8 in RIPE (and thanks to the old community members
> for that), but 2016-03 cannot make that much change on draining rate. And I
> don't think that the pool is that much drained by traders. Yes there is a
> percentage drained by traders, but comparing to the actual users that's not
> that much to put this kind of restriction. (We also have enough other
> restrictions in place)

Yes, thanks to old members who didn’t care about the future of others and made this mess.
Thanks to members like http://ipv4.stil.dk <http://ipv4.stil.dk/> and many many more who requested huge amount of
IP space without a real need, now selling them for profit.

Thanks to traders like Elvis and Ciprian the problem evolved, but they just used an open door and
following the rules.

While some of you are techies in some ISP or even having your own business, working hard for
you, family, employees, making money, some company/IP trader made a huge amount of money in
a short amount of time ‘selling’ IP’s.

You, old members, knew before ’90’s and ’00 that the IP Space will exhaust between 2005 and 2011,
and you still permitted allocations with almost no real proof of needing from the requester/LIR.

This policy will not slow traders, and I think it will really affect the new members that really needed the 
IP Spaces.

A policy that tightens the allocation procedure with real verifications might be better.

I do not support this policy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161023/57dfa3d1/attachment.html>