Hi,<div> </div><div>I was refering to 2015-04 and I was wrong to accuse you of hypocrisy. I understand now that you don't support the policy change which would "ban" regular transfer after mergers. I like the policies as they are and 2015-04 would be great if it would only compact the policies and not bring important changes.</div><div> </div><div>Ciprian On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, 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">Hi, On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 04:28:25PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote: > I never said Gert did something that was against any policy. Probably he > never did such things. But he clearly took advantage of the merger & > acquisition procedure and now he tries to close it through the policy > 2015-04. Isn't this hypocrisy ? OK, *this* is something that needs an answer - which is unfortunate, because I wanted to let this thread die silently. I am not the proposer of 2015-04, so I certainly do not "try to do anything through the policy 2015-04". Erik Bais is. I'm not sure if I have commented on the merits of 2015-04 before - I might have, in discussions about the merits of having a single transfer policy document vs. lots of fragments in other policy documents, but certainly not on the aspect of "after a M&A, transfers of acquired space is no longer possible for 24 months". If you try to actually understand what this document says: "The proposal extends the 24-month transfer restriction to resources that have been transferred due to changes to an organisation?s business structure (such as a merger or acquisition). It is important to note that this restriction only prevents policy transfers ? resources subject to this restriction may still be transferred due to further mergers or acquisitions within the 24-month period." this in no way interacts with "company A buys company B, including their resources" - if in effect, it would deny company A from selling off B's resources afterward - which is not what we do, or intend to do. In case you're confusing 2015-04 (in your text) with 2016-03 (in the subject), it should be pointed out that 2016-03 very explicitely states: "5.5 Transfers of Allocations ... 4. Point 3 of this article does not apply to any change of holdership of address space as a result of company mergers or acquisitions" The very first version of 2016-03 would have required holders of multiple /22s, no matter how they came to hold them, to return all but one - but that was changed, not by *my* doing, but because the community made it very clear that that was not wanted. So, whatever point you are trying to make - I'm not the proposer of any of these proposals - AND neither of them disallows merges & acquisitions of LIRs with /22s > But let's not mix the discussions. My main concern is that two policies > which are not properly discussed and approved by the community, which seem > far from having a consensus (as far as I can see) will most likely be seen > by the chair as perfect solutions that need to be implemented right away > and he will say that there is consensus even if it isn't. Now that's an interesting point, and shows you've totally read and understood my summary on the discussion phase of 2016-03 v2.0 :-) (especially the bits about "proposer's decision" and "more support needed in review phase"). ... and the bits about "If you disagree with my interpretation..." that are at the end of every declaration of consensus - and have indeed prompted corrections in the past. > I would remind you that it was another policy when Gert stepped down and > admitted that he wouldn't consider himself objective enough and let Sanders > take the decision. If he can't be objective enough from time to time, then > ... just praise him, what else would you do ? There are cases where I clearly *want* to take a side - and then I say so, and put down the chair duties for these. So - can we stick to the merits or not of the proposal in the Subject: line now (which happens to be 2016-03)? If not, please change the Subject: to something that makes it clear that this is personal, and not related to the specific policies at hand. Dear WG participants: please see that we can let this thread re-focus. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 </blockquote></div>