[address-policy-wg] comments on the revised 2016-03

> On 16 Jun 2016, at 15:14, Remco van Mook <remco.vanmook at gmail.com> wrote:
> I would encourage everyone to carefully read this second version (and not just respond "no, still hate it, kill it with fire") as it is quite different from the first version.

Remco, all, I think further tweaks are needed. Sorry.

First, I think it would be helpful if there was a clear statement in the policy text that the rule of one LIR, one /22 applies to ALL future allocations made by the NCC and not just those which are made out of 185/8. There has been some confusion that the “last /8 policy” -- yes, a better name is needed -- only applies to allocations from 185/8.

Second, stating that a final /22 cannot be transferred seems over-restrictive. Although I agree with the proposal’s intention that LIR’s can’t/shouldn't sell their last ever /22, that  does appear to prevent types of transfer that probably should be allowed: for instance LIR mergers/acquisitions or reorganisations. It might also be an idea to say that if an LIR doesn’t have ALLOCATED FINAL space and somehow acquires an LIR which does have one of those  /22s, the acquiring LIR can’t get an allocation of ALLOCATED FINAL space because it now has one of these as a result of the merger/acquisition/whatever.