<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font face="Consolas">+1 Bill on this.</font></p>
<p><font face="Consolas">Well </font>if issued resources by a
registry, then resource review on a member is essential. Anything
else sounds fishy.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Simon<br>
</p>
<p><font face="Consolas"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Consolas"></font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/12/17 9:12 AM, Bill Woodcock
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:7285A7CF-C0E4-4DAA-8532-7C60F12BDCD5@pch.net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Jun 26, 2017, at 8:37 PM, Lu Heng <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:h.lu@anytimechinese.com"><h.lu@anytimechinese.com></a> wrote:
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
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.
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.
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.
-Bill
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>