<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div></div><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="">Yes, thanks to old members who didn’t care about the future of others and made this mess.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Please read my previous post.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="">Thanks to members like <a href="http://ipv4.stil.dk" class="">http://ipv4.stil.dk</a> and many many more who requested huge amount of IP space without a real need, now selling them for profit.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks to traders like Elvis and Ciprian the problem evolved, but they just used an open door and following the rules.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No ad hominem attacks on this list</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="">While some of you are techies in some ISP or even having your own business, working hard for you, family, employees, making money, some company/IP trader made a huge amount of money in a short amount of time ‘selling’ IP’s.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">You, old members, knew before ’90’s and ’00 that the IP Space will exhaust between 2005 and 2011, and you still permitted allocations with almost no real proof of needing from the requester/LIR.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Those statements are false, please see the archives.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="">This policy will not slow traders, and I think it will really affect the new members that really needed the IP Spaces.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>How? If they need the addresses then a policy that says that they can't sell them won't have any effect on them.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="">A policy that tightens the allocation procedure with real verifications might be better.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I do not support this policy</div></blockquote><br><div>Sorry, for participating in a consensus based discussion you need to come up with arguments and valid training that can be discussed. Your message only contains ad hominem attacks and wild and inaccurate statements and is therefore for useful for the policy development process.</div><div><br></div><div>This working group is open to all for discussing policy development, but messages like this do not qualify as "discussing".</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Sander</div><div><br></div></body></html>