Moin,
An appropriate audit procedure should be implemented, and this issue should be addressed and regulated.
This discussion has been gravitating around putting _additional_ tasks in the form of being the 'address usage police' on the NCC for some time now. Any form of de-allocation (and we are not even talking LEGACY here, see what is going on in ARIN) is a significant administrative process. Furthermore, no matter how _I_ view addresses (as non-property, of course), many entities actually _do_ view them as property. As such, starting any kind of endeavor of de-allocation is just a sure-shot way of ensuring close to eternal job security for civil litigation lawyers in the NCC region; With the associated additional costs to be shouldered by the membership. However, instead of trying to solve the _social_ problem of IPv4 "keeping without necessarily needing" with some form of policy-legal- hammer, we could also just solve the _technical_ problem of IPv4 scarcity by rolling out IPv6 (as imperfect as it may be). I would bet my whole v4 allocation that--on societal scale, and even when considering rather slow moving enterprises and complex legacy setups--globally rolling out v6 everywhere is _significantly_ cheaper than the long tail of litigation any form of deallocation would drag along. With best regards, Tobias -- Dr.-Ing. Tobias Fiebig T +31 616 80 98 99 M tobias@fiebig.nl