Hi Peter,
My main objection to this proposal is simple: It depletes the available pool for _new_ participants faster. I strongly believe any new actor should be able to go from zero to non-zero with the addresses available from RIPE. For an actor with non-zero addresses to get more addresses, there is a secondary market.
Indeed. It all comes down to "the needs of those in the next few years with no IPv4 addresses" vs "those today who have only one /22".
Since that is the base of my objection, I do not see any way that a middle ground can be met. Based on my understanding of the other objections, I believe this is held by at least a few others from the objection side.
Well, to make a useful discussion possible I think it's important to look at the timescales. A policy that changes expected depletion from e.g. 100 years to 90 years might not be a problem, but other timescales will definitely be a problem. I think the timescale I have heard that people would find acceptable is *at least* 5 to 10 years. If you look at the minutes of RIPE 70 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/ap/minutes/ripe-70) you'll see a statement from RIPE NCC when discussing this policy proposal that "the RIPE NCC’s IPv4 pool was expected to last for around five years.".
I appreciate the effort put into this proposal, but I do not think any solution can be proposed.
The stated expected timescale already seems to be around the bare minimum lifetime that is accepted, and much less than what many people would like. I therefore have to agree that any proposal that shortens that lifetime even further will very probably not get consensus. Someone would need to come up with a radical new idea to get out of the current deadlock. Which is why I urge all new participants in this discussion to read the mailing list archives so they can get the full current picture before they propose a solution. Cheers, Sander