[address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

Hi Gert,

Thanks for your reply, inline answers below.



This is the wrong question to ask.

 "Why is changing the current system this way an improvement compared to
  what we have now?  Improvement in which way, exactly, and who benefits?"

We do not change policy just to change it, or because someone else did so, but to fix a problem, improve a process, shift unfairness some other way (these are never straightforward), etc.


>Jordi has already expressed the problem and supported his depiction of unfairness that can be shifted. He buttressed his expression by pointing to relevant policies at every other RIR as evidence that he is not alone in his view.  I would say he established his problem statement as a desire to shift the unfairness of retaining special address status after the provision of services that never existed for legacy owners before the RIR system. (At least I am unaware of booked transfers being possible to legacy holders prior to the RIR system.)

Policy proposals do not come cheap.  Bottom-up policy making requires that people spend their time looking at policy proposals, make up their mind, voice their opinion and discuss to come to an agreement.  If we flood the system with changes "for the sake of change" that neither have enough support to properly take off, nor have a clearly defined problem statement (that has some amount of support behind it), we are wearing out the system, and people will stop engaging.


>If we flood the system with comments from outside the region, issuing problem statement objections and irrelevancies about RIPE's contractual leverage over legacy holders and legacy holders' ability to voluntarily change status, we could also wear out the system. 😉

Regards,
Mike