[address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 08:33:46AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> > Technically, this would be a matter for this working group (coming up
> > with a reclaim policy for unused allocations) - but that would have
> > to be a separate proposal.
> 
> Might we instead inist that the «let's make the RIPE NCC take existing
> IPv4 allocations away from someone else (and give them to me)» crowd
> actually submits a formal policy proposal to that effect?

I'm willing to offer 10-15 minutes of air time at the upcoming RIPE meeting
to "pre-discuss" the viability of this - but given how the discussion about
2015-05 went, I'd rather not start the formal policy machine unless we
see significant support for going there.

So, if one of you wants to come up with a specific approach that would
be implementable for the RIPE NCC and wants to present his ideas at the
next RIPE meeting, let me know.  Emphasis on "actually implementable".

(Of course this is valid for every new policy idea that needs a pre-check
- this is what the meetings are really good for: get quick feedback from
the group)

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20151030/77806f80/attachment.sig>