* Sascha Luck [ml] <a...@c4inet.net> [2015-06-09 13:18]: > >Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it > >should be enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of > >this policy. Otherwise, from my point of view, it would be a > >"change of the rules during the game" and it would have > >retroactive effects - which is not ok. > > This is also the (only) reason why I oppose this proposal. It > sets a precedent for ex post facto rule changes which is, IMO, > dangerous, especially in light of other appetites for stricter > IPv4 rationing that have been voiced in this discussion.
This policy does not change anything in regarding to the IP objects.
It changes the transfer requirements. A transfer that has *not yet
happend* can not be affected "ex post facto".
What you're postulating is something like "I should not have to go to
jail for theft because theft was legal when I was born." No, you will
go to jail if you steal something after theft was made illegal. So
stop doing it and you're fine.
Regards
Sebastian
--
GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE)
'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE.
-- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
