>> You conveniently side-stepped answering the case I described. Note >> that I wrote "*solely* for the purpose of of getting a /22...". In >> that case there would be no customers to move or networks to merge. I >> would say it is incumbent upon you to justify that we should keep this >> loophole as wide as a truck in the policy. >> >> The 24-month holding period puts a damper on this avenue of abuse >> against the intention of the last /8 policy, and would put a little >> bit more longevity into the availability of the resources under that >> policy. It may be that this diminishes your company's prospects of >> near-future income, to which I would say that basing your buisness on >> the abuse of something which is perceived as a common resource is >> perhaps not worthy of so much sympathy? > > Again, unfounded personal attacks.
Please read that again. I said "It may be..." (last paragraph above). > Why do you have to analyze the person and not the idea. The idea I beleive is section 2.2 in the 2015-04 proposal. I beleive I have argued for its presence, by describing the abuse against the last /8 policy we'd otherwise be widely open to. > Who gives you the right to accuse make such allegations and > what is the purpose of this? Have I taken advantage of a > loophole? I beleive that if you read what I wrote earlier more carefully, you would come to the conclusion that I have not made such a claim. However, you're strongly defending the continued presence of a loophole in the policy as wide as a truck, permitting behaviour such as described earlier. I'd say it falls upon you to justify why we should let status quo continue, where the stated intention of the last /8 policy is widely open for ... circumvention. Regards, - Håvard
