On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Jim Reid <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 20 Jun 2016, at 09:04, Gert Doering <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > But I'm close to giving up on this and calling a ban on further changes > > to the IPv4 policy > > +1 >
I'm almost there. In the early discussion phase, I was tending towards being against the proposal being discussed, with a certain does of "meh, doesn't matter much". But then all the extremely bad opposing non-arguments kindof have convinced me that 2016-03 is needed, and should probably be implemented. After that, though, I think further changes are unnecessary. > > A possible compromise might be a requirement for future IPv4 policy > proposals to show that they do not disadvantage future participants or > increase the burn rate of the remaining IPv4 pool. Same thing really. > > How does one go about restricting future policy proposals? -- Jan
