Dear working group,

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 30 April 2012.

--> a) I don't like the idea, that this proposal tries to allow smaller networks then the minimum /21 (for the last /8 then /22) allocations to be transferred into the RIPE NCC region. As some may know there is a "marketplace" for IPv4 allocations in the LIR portal right now. On this marketplace the minimum size of a allocation to transfer is /21. I would strongly recommend not to de-aggregate allocations any further. On the other way if the author of the proposal can explain why she choose a /24 as minimum transfer size I would like to hear her reasons for that and maybe why not a /25 - yes I am aware of the "common sense" of filtering. --> c) Why would someone like to change the requirements a RIPE NCC member needs to fulfill to get an allocation? In other words I would like to read something like "the recipient must be able to explain the need of this allocation and will use a minimum of 50% of it for it's own services or businesses". To be honest when reading "[...]will not be sold within 15 months[...] I get the idea of making a business out of IPv4. I am sure that the author does mean something else and I wold love to hear her explanation of this wording. In general I like the idea of transferring IPv4 allocation into RIR regions where there is a good need of this resources. BUT I don't like the idea of bringing policies in position to use the exhaustion of IPv4 as a business. And since the whole proposal with words like "sell" sounds like a business plan. RIRs give internet ressources based on needs not on price tags. If we start to official sell resources RIRs will become money driven then community driven. Again I believe that the author of the proposal wasn't thinking of money when writing this idea down and can now explain to me why I am a paranoid. Thank you all for your attention. Best regards -- Alex