Hi, Thanks for raising an interesting policy discussion.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 at 13:46, AlbaHost SH.P.K via address-policy-wg <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > >Since there are not many /24s available, and the waiting list is long, > >it's hard to see how this would make a tangible benefit for the not > >very clearly specified beneficiaries > > I am late but not too late with such restrictions about two membership per > entitiy, since this should be implemented long time ago, if you check the > allocations: https://rex.apnic.net/resources?rir=ripencc you will see an > entity with more than 20 multilir accounts hoarding the IPv4 space, for only > purpose to lease them out and not using them for theirself! And as such, > that's why we have that long waiting list. I do believe that there is still > time in which we can prevent it. A proposal for a policy that meets the needs of a specific and well defined group is within this working group's remit. But membership rules are governed by the RIPE NCC's membership. If you're a member, you could take that element of your proposal to the Membership Discussion list: https://www.ripe.net/membership/mail/ripe-ncc-mailing-lists/members-discuss/ Kind regards, Leo Vegoda for the co-chairs -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
