On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 at 22:03, Gert Doering <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 08:27:07PM +0000, Adrian Bolster wrote: > > 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.
Despite the fact this precedence has already been set, as Gert explained, why do you think it is absurd? These people are bending the rules for profit against the interests of the industry. Let's bend the rules back and stop them making a profit and maybe even lose money from the fees they have already paid trying to profiteer. We should use any available option that is not explicitly 'disallowed' to close these loopholes. cheers denis co-chair DB-WG > > Strictly speaking, all transfer policies have been applied retroactively > (at some point, transfers were made possible for all resources that had > been allocated or assigned before that point). Also, we have done this > when increasing the holding period for the /22s to 24 months - which, > of course, people that made money of doing fast-LIRs did not like. > > So this has been done and can be done again. > > What we cannot do is retroactively disallow a transfer that has already > been *done*, but deciding new policies for existing allocations and > assignment is fully covered by the RIPE general service agreement. > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -- 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
