On 12. mai 2015, at 17.41, Sascha Luck [ml] <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 05:01:58PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: >> Actually while it was "according to the letter of the policy", I >> think it will be hard to find someone to actually say "it was >> according to the spirit of the last-/8 policy". So I'd >> challenge the "reasonable" in your statement. > > A LIR now joining the RIPE NCC has no way of determining what the > "spirit" of a policy is. (bar, perhaps, reading all apwg > discussions leading to it) The letter of the document is all that > counts and IPRAs can't make determinations based on the "spirit" > either, otherwise this proposal would not be necessary.
You have a point about the spirit of the policy not necessarily being clear from the policy's text. That said, I find it hard to read the current policy in a way where you could reasonably make the assumptions you make a case for defending. The document isn't limited to a 5.5 that stands on its own, and anyone reading this point alone cannot honestly claim to act in good faith. Additionally, the loophole in the policy is a clear discrepancy, one which an interested party would ask for clarification about and not merely pretend wasn't there. Going along the route you've chosen therefore seems somewhat disingenuous to me, sorry. -- Cheers, Jan
