I was in support of relaxing the allocation rules for existing lirs as long as the organisation that might benefit from extra IPs did transfer ( or Sell ) IP space previously allocated, to prevent further abuse.

But I can see the principal of protecting Ip space for new entrants is much fairer and more sustainable than what would be a short sighted gain of 1024 addresses every 18 months..for existing Lirs,

Im against this proposal ... i can see the benefit of having addresses for new entrants to the market..

No more flip flopping from me on this proposal

Thanks...

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016, at 19:24, Randy Bush wrote:
> the purpose of the single last /8 allocation was to allow NEW ENTRY.

The *single* "last /8" (185.0.0.0/8) is still reserved to what most
people consider new entry.
Further allocations would be from recovered space, which can also serve
"new entry".
Did you actually read the new text ?

> pigs coming back to the trough every 18 months is not new anything.

No, it's not. It'a actually commonplace in the other RIRs.

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs

Kindest regards,
Tom Smyth

Mobile: +353 87 6193172
---------------------------------
PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE YOU PRINT THIS E-MAIL
This email contains information which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that
any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify me by telephone or by electronic mail immediately. Any opinions expressed are those of the author, not the company's .This email does not constitute either offer or acceptance of any contractually binding agreement. Such offer or acceptance must be communicated in
writing. You are requested to carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment. Thomas Smyth accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may be caused by malicious software or attachments.