Hi, We @ as198988 support the proposal ... Im going to assume for the sake of arguement that in these discussions that all people contributing are either Mere mortal lir tech / admin contacts like me or well established experts contributing to policy for years or academics ... that should tackle the hire a croud... problem.. I think it is important that a pool of /22s is maintained for as long as possible to allow genuine internet startups deploy ipv6 infrastructure with an ability to create backward compatible translation systems +1 mofos <div class="gmail_quote">On 9 Jun 2015 16:58, "Gert Doering" <<a href="mailto:gert@space.net">gert@space.net</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Ciprian Nica wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in use and they can't give up on it. </blockquote> Perhaps they could when they saw how much money they could get for it. If it cost 5M GBP (I just made that figure up) to move away from the address space and they can get more money selling it, then it makes sense to do so. If they were told to just hand it back without compensation, then this wouldn't happen, because they're not going to pay 5M GBP out of the goodness of their heart to give addresses away. <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community, that would be a real benefit. </blockquote> Most likely most of these were actually using at least part of this space, and the only reason they handed it back was because they could pay X amount of money for doing the work, and get X+Y money back from selling. Let's say an organization sits on a legacy /8. They might not use more than 30% of this actually, but it's really fragmented, so cleaning it up takes quite a lot of work. It's a lot of night time maintenance, changing server addresses, handling resulting problems etc. If they can get 15M EUR for this space over time, they can use some of that money to pay people do do the work needed to free it up. Yes, they're making a profit out of a resource that was handed to them back in the days for none or very little money, but they followed the rules back then. Now, they're sitting on this resource and is worth money if they can free it up. This fact creates a business case to do work and free it up and sell it. If you told them they need to hand it back without compensation, that business case goes away. So it's no option to try to squeeze blood from that stone for free. Now, with the last-/8 policy, we're trying to subsidize and simplify for new entrants into the market and help them establish business. We changed the rules, because the resource was running out, but we're trying to ease the pain for the new/small guy. What we're now trying to do is make it a little less appealing to take this subsidized thing and sell it on the market, while not making it harder for the actual people we're trying to help. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: <a href="mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se" target="_blank">swmike@swm.pp.se</a> </blockquote></div>