[address-policy-wg] comment on "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria"

Dear Mr. Schmidt,

I want to make a comment on your proposal "Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria“.
https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05 <https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05>

We became RIPE member about 1,5 years ago. We have received one single /22 subnet. Due to groth requirement, we have purchased an additional /23 subnet a few weeks ago in an auction.

In you proposal it is stated that for an additional /22 allocation the member „must not have transferred any IPv4 address space before“.

I hope this requirement only concernes transfers away from us, not to us. Otherwise I find it very unfair that we are punished for organizing additional subnets in a legal way for our regular business. We don’t intend to trade with those IPs.

Best regards,

Kai Rottleb
 


 
--
KNT Internet, Inh. Kai Rottleb
Riethnordhaeuser Str. 71 
99189 Hassleben, Germany
Mail: 	kai.rottleb at knt.io <mailto:kai.rottleb at knt.io>  
Tel: 	036201 61055
Mobil: 	01723971017

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160519/37705fbd/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3575 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160519/37705fbd/attachment.p7s>