[address-policy-wg] 2015-05

I strongly disagree with the idea behind this policy. 

One of the reasons is that the current policy allows for future new entrance to have an option to register for a /22 IPv4 to be able to implement their own infrastructure and be able to use CGNAT... 

If we allowing this policy to be accepted, the last bits of the current pool will be handed out and it will deprive future (hosting)companies of any chance into the market. 
Although I seriously like the suggestion of Randy to allocate a /16 to me, based on the letter B in my family name, in order to just be done with it the final scraps, it doesn't do any justice to what is currently in policy. 

There is always a reason to be found why someone could argue that $member with certain size .. will require additional (free) IPv4 ... 
But unless we are going to discriminate about 85% of the current members .. or 100% of the future members ... This is not going to be a fair solution moving forward on this path . 

It isn't difficult to come up with a policy that will distribute the remaining IPv4 within a month ... 

<sarcasm> Who cares about fair distribution anyway ..  </sarcasm> 

The difficult part is to plan ahead ... see beyond our own direct need and hope that we will not come to a point where we will hand out the IPv4. 
It is the goal of this AP-WG to come up with sustainable policies for our service region ... I fail to see this change in policy meet any of the above stated points.. 

I think we should stop this policy and this line of thinking asap. 

Regards,
Erik Bais