Whilst I agree with the vast majority of your email it is absurd to retrospectively apply a newly adopted policy. I believe this would be a very unhealthy precedent to set.
Regards, Adrian. Sent from my iPhone > On 7 Dec 2021, at 19:54, denis walker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 at 18:44, Sebastian-Wilhelm Graf > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hello! >> >> >> This has the advantage of being "fair" >> > This depends on your definition of fairness. Let's be brutally honest > here. Anyone who has set up 10, 20, 30 LIRs in the last couple of > years and has received multiple /24s is intentionally circumventing > the goal of the policy for financial gain. They are playing games for > profit. Let's get the legal advice we need and stop these games. These > are policies, not national/international laws. Policies are a set of > rules for the RIPE NCC membership. Members have signed contracts > agreeing to all policies and agreed changes to those policies. Nothing > says a policy change cannot be retroactive. As Gert said, let's apply > a policy change back to 1/1/21. If someone wants to challenge it in > court...let them name and shame themselves. As a community/membership > we should be willing to stand by our principles of fairness and let > the RIPE NCC go to court to defend these principles. While IPv4 is > still in use and essential for genuine new startup businesses, let's > stand up to those who are playing these games for profit...for the > good of the internet. > > I don't know who any of these people are with multiple LIRs. But I am > sure they are all subscribed to this mailing list and will do what > they can to prevent policy changes that stop them from making profits. > To re quote Daniel's famous phrase at the Database BoF, "Let's stop > tinkering around the edges" of these policies, jump in at the deep end > and fix the problem...to stop the blatant profiteering. > > I am going to go one step further than Gert's proposal. Let's suspend > the current policy pending a review. In other words, freeze the > allocation of /24s. I am sure there is nothing in the PDP or anywhere > else that allows for this. But there probably is nothing that > disallows it either. Again let's have a legal review and take bold > action. > > I am probably going to get hammered for saying all this, but sometimes > we need to make bold moves and set new precedences... > > cheers > denis > co-chair DB-WG > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
