Hi Radu and Ricardo (& AP community members), I looked at the policy text and also checked if there would be an option to just ‘hand out’ an additional /22 to all current LIR’s.. If we currently have about 12.000 members .. and hand out additional /22’s to each of them, it will cost 12 milj addresses ( more or less..) ( as it would be more fair than discriminating on current size and age of an LIR … ) The current pool is about 16.4 milj addresses left.. and in the last 3 years, they have handed out 9 milj. addresses. As there probably won’t come more than 32.000 addresses back from IANA .. and not much more space to be expected from de-registration of PI space.. The pool won’t grow much more than it is currently … So handing out 12 milj. addresses in a single gift.. without the hard requirement to not allow final /8 policy received IP space to be transferred, will most likely only increase the run-out of the IP space and not fix anything.. The real issue is, this policy change won’t fix anything at all … it will make things impossible for the near future. The replenishment from IANA will stop, so the actual pool will go down. With the actual rate of 9 milj per 3 years.. that means that at the current rate, the current pool will last for about 5.3 years. ( looking at an avg of 3 milj per year. ) If we hand out 12 milj. Addresses of the 16.4 milj. We have 4.4 milj. addresses left.. meaning that we will have a full run-out within 18 months. These are the numbers that we are currently looking at. They might change a bit, off by a couple months perhaps.. but the difference is an issue of fully running out within 18 months or 5.3 years. So as we need more time for companies to fully move over to IPv6 .. and we need to be able to hand out a /22 IPv4 for CGNAT for new entrance to the market in order to be able to compete.. ( As that was the actual reason to implement the last /8 policy..) So taking all this in mind, this policy change is a bad decision imho. Yes I know that you are trying to discriminate in the policy by saying, no transfers done in the past, not more than 4k IPv4 etc etc.. but that is just semantics.. it won’t fix the overall policy you are trying to implement. So perhaps a long answer to say that I won't support it. Regards, Erik Bais