[address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations

I asked:

> > Erik:
> Have you responded to the analysis of Vladimir Andreev which
> shows that the impact of this practice is minimal?

You replied: 

> I know most of the brokers in the community ... and I agree with
> Vladimir in his analysis .. this has less than minimal impact ... ( as I see it
> with a broker hat on .. )

But you added: 

> The fact that Vladimir points out that the policy CURRENTLY may not be
> abused as much as one might think ... that does not mean that for the
> cases where it is clearly abused... it didn't happen.

OK, no one questions whether it happened. I guess follow-up questions would be: 
 - if this proposal does not pass, do you think this loophole will  be used more frequently in the future? To the point where it materially impacts the intent of the policy to reserve IPv4s for startups? In other words, is the current loophole user a pioneer who might start a land rush, or a minor unintended side effect?
 - Might this loophole actually benefit some small startups who quickly discover they need more than a /22? 
 - Will the addition of a new restriction create enforcement issues or other unforeseen complications for companies using the policy? 

I think the proposed policy does clarify and enforce the original intent of the final /8 policy, and I don't really oppose it. I am just trying to keep things evidence based and in the proper perspective.  I think the drama surrounding this is a bit over the top.