<div dir="ltr">Hi<div><br></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 12 July 2017 at 08:12, Bill Woodcock <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:woody@pch.net" target="_blank">woody@pch.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">While I am not going to opine on the merits of the policy under discussion, I’d like to draw attention to one of the assertions made in the discussion:<br>
<br>
> On Jun 26, 2017, at 8:37 PM, Lu Heng <<a href="mailto:h.lu@anytimechinese.com">h.lu@anytimechinese.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> This policy is in direct conflict with transfer policy, if someone wants to sell their address space, they surely not commit to use it with the original purpose, should AFRINIC instead of allowing them to transfer the space, but reclaim them and redistribute them for "better use"? If that is the case, the transfer policy will have no use because of that.<br>
<br>
I would just like to point out that the AfriNIC community does not exist to serve the financial interests of those who wish to sell addresses, rather than use them.<br>
<br>
The AfriNIC community is the community of people who need IP addresses, in order to route them and give people access to the Internet.  The AfriNIC policy process exists to serve those who wish to _use_ IP addresses, not those who wish to profit from them at the expense of the community.<br>
<br>
So, whatever your thoughts on the merits of this proposal, the fact that it fails to serve the interests of speculators is not an argument against it.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>
















<p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="text-align:left;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span lang="EN-US">The
argument in my statement makes no contribution to the model of redistribution
address space, yes, it can be so choice by the community, allow people to
sell it, or ask the registry to redistribute it.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="text-align:left;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="text-align:left;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span lang="EN-US">By
far, in today's reality, globe community has a consensus in this very topic,
that market works far better than central planning.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="text-align:left;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="text-align:left;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span lang="EN-US">It
been very interesting to see an American--where the heart of capitalism are in
support of central management and central distribution of the resources rather
than supporting market economy, the very argument supporting planning economy
in communist country was exactly the same that expecting people will return
their resource (whatever it is, food, tools, even money) after usage voluntarily,
rather let the market do its job.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="text-align:left;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="text-align:left;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span lang="EN-US">By
blood and millions of lives in the 20^th century, human has learned a
hard lesson this way really doesn't work.<span></span></span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="text-align:left;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>

<p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="text-align:left;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><span lang="EN-US">However
it is irrelevant to this very topic in the table, I barely point it out that
this policy is in direct conflict of an existing policy, so, in order for the
policy document to make sense, either this policy need to substantially modify
the transfer policy, or being withdrawal.<span></span></span></p>

</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<span class="gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
                                -Bill<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></span><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>--<br>Kind regards.<br>Lu<br><br></div></div></div>
</div></div>