[rpd] Some thoughts, and some actions required

[Douglas Onyango]

Hi Owen,
On 28 January 2016 at 21:27, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> The current policy seems to favor the loud thud. What you seem to be
> advocating is the longer, slower, more painful tumble.

I don't particularly oppose the idea of a loud thud. I actually look
forward to the v6 adoption that will follow, however, after reviewing
the policy I feel that it has a few holes that might allow some few
companies to rush us into the thud, possibly by carefully
orchestrating requests.

This is the reason I agree with Andrew on the need for a policy revision.

While the policy won't allocate/assign comparatively large blocks, it
will allow a member to come back endlessly, something I think could
benefit a few large members at the cost of the many existing and yet
to come members, and even possibly quash the dreams of a smooth
transition to v6 as there might be no more space to deploy transition
technologies.

Regards,