May be better is to return unused blocks during any time to the RIPE pool? Why do older LIRs have more priveledges than new ones? They didn't setup new accounts before 2012 didn't pay for each /22. I won't be call such names, but you will understand who are they if you open The transfer statistics. Or let's change this proposal and continue the period for 48 months. <div class="gmail_quote">09 Июн 2015 г. 16:01 пользователь "Sebastian Wiesinger" <<a href="mailto:sebastian@karotte.org">sebastian@karotte.org</a>> написал: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">* Storch Matei <<a href="mailto:matei@profisol.ro">matei@profisol.ro</a>> [2015-06-09 12:45]: > Hi, > > I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of view > regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my understanding > that this policy will not make a real difference from the RIPE NCC's point > of view, and that if the rate of requesting new /22s remains the same, the > pool of available Ipv4 resources will last more than 5 years from now - > which from my point of view is a long time. It does make a difference when the rate continues to increase which it probably will. It is quite reasonable to expect that it will when the IPv4 market pressure grows. So the goal is to put a stop to this before it is too late. Even if the rate should not increase, these actions are against the intention of the last-/8 policy and this alone is a reason why this proposal is needed in my opinion. > Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs because > it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be lowered. > Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros setup > fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and it is in the > current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in. Membership numbers / fees are not part of this WG. > Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should be > enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. Otherwise, > from my point of view, it would be a "change of the rules during the game" > and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok. It changes rules for transfers that happen after the proposal is accepted. So nothing changes for transfers that have already happened. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant </blockquote></div>