[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

> On Apr 14, 2016, at 15:50, remco van mook <remco.vanmook at gmail.com <mailto:remco.vanmook at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> Dear colleagues,
>> 
>> I'd like to reiterate my objection to this proposal. Anyone who thinks another block of 1,000 addresses is going to help them float their business is in my opinion delusional (because the next step would be an extra 2,000, then 4,000, ..). The problem is not that you're getting a /22 - the problem is that we're out of space, never to come back. I also object to the notion that new entrants who joined the game recently have any more entitlement than new entrants 2 years from now. 
>> 
>> The final /8 policy in the RIPE region has been, in my opinion, a remarkable success because there's actually still space left to haggle about. What does need fixing is the fact that there are a few obvious loopholes that are now being used to contravene the intention of the policy, and are being used as a rationale for this proposal. 

I agree with Remco, and thus share his objection.

Tim

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160415/cc625e50/attachment.html>