[address-policy-wg] In support of 2012-01, and side questions.
Tiberiu Ungureanu tbb at ines.ro
Thu Apr 12 16:23:00 CEST 2012
Hello. First, I want to show support for 2012-01. Second, I read the treads regarding this proposal, and I've seen some opposition, but I don't understand the arguments of the opposition, so I would like the people who oppose to clarify their positions: - What are the dangers that we face if we approve this proposal? * Resources that are available in another region will be made available to RIPE members? Isn't that a good thing? * Resources currently assigned to a RIPE member will leave RIPE influence zone, the RIPE member will potentially get some cash that *maybe* will help that member spend money to deploy IPv6? Or maybe that member will take the money and run to the first casino and waste them all (but wouldn't that in the end help the economy?) * Resources that a RIPE member "sold" to an entity outside the RIPE region, instead of returning them to RIPE could have been used by another RIPE member that now needs them and doesn't have them available. This other RIPE member is now forced to use IPv6, because there's no IPv4 left. But isn't that what we all want? It is not my intention to feed the trolls, but I find 2012-01 very reasonable, and I don't understand the opposition to it. So I allow for the unlikely situation ( ;) ) where I may be wrong. Am I? -- Tiberiu Ungureanu ro.ines -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20120412/145ba175/attachment.sig>