On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 04:02:26PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
It was meant as an attack on the argument itself.
No worries. Interpretative difficulties, this proposal seems to attract them :) I'll re-state my arguments at this point, for the avoidance of doubt: - I recognise that a loop-hole exists and that some people are getting away with something - I'm *not* trying to defend outright abuse of such loop-holes. - I don't oppose attempts to prevent outright speculative behaviour. - I don't believe those attempts are going to be terribly effective, they are going to make speculation somewhat more expensive, nothing more - I fear, also in light of what I've seen from the apwg session today, that these attempts will lead to more bureaucratisation and attempts of the "community" to regulate into the business affairs of members and that those will also extend into the ipv6 realm. - I believe that the freedom of members to determine their own business affairs is an important good, and one worth balancing against the desire to not let anyone get away with "gaming the policy" - I believe the implementation plan for 2015-01 does not strike this balance properly and that it sets a dangerous precedent for more of the same which is already in the pipeline. rgds, Sascha Luck
