Since I'm the proposer I might as well respond. You know full well I'm capable of defending myself in any argument, so I'm kind of sad to see this half-accusation flying around, even as a joke - it isn't actually about the proposal.

Given the state of the the discussion around v2 of this proposal, with about 120 emails as of this afternoon, of which a substantial part are rants, oneliners, conspiracy theories and off-topic anger, I've all but lost track on what substantive arguments have been presented that haven't already been addressed in this discussion. And so, I can well imagine, have others.

Between Gert as chair of this working group and me as a proposer, I have the easier job in this discussion as I only need to respond to the bits I think are relevant to the proposal; Gert however, has the unfortunate task of having to keep track of proponents, opposers and substantive arguments against the proposal as written. 

With that out of the way, responding to the well-made observation by James Blessing last week: "Do we need to have the option for an LIR to transfer to and LIR who hasn't already had their final allocation?"

I think that's a very good point. Ideally, we'd repeal the transfer ban from this proposed policy when the RIPE NCC runs out of address space to satisfy article 5.1 of the IPv4 allocation policy - after all, the aim of the proposal is to restrict speculative behaviour while sticking with 'business as usual' for all others. Unfortunately, looking at the quagmire that we've walked into, I'd be very surprised if we'd have any functional IPv4 policy forming body left at that point. As for the other implication of this question, meaning a transfer before that day, I don't see why you'd want to do that; on top of that, making that carve-out likely creates yet another loophole for speculative purposes.

I think we'd do ourselves and the chairs a massive favour if we can keep this discussion civil and to the point.

Kind regards,

Remco