Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 06:55:03PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: "explicitly" implies that this has been, uh, explicitly written down somewhere. Could you provide a reference? I was sure I'd read an explicit declaration that transfers due to business transactions do not fall under transfer

Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

Hi, On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:53:10PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: > RIPE policy has, until recently, explicitly recognised that M (and "explicitly" implies that this has been, uh, explicitly written down somewhere. Could you provide a reference? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have

Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

Hi Sasha, > RIPE policy has, until recently, explicitly recognised that M (and > what happens to resources due to those) is not in scope for the > PDP. It is only since "last /8" that certain elements of the > "community" have tried, by hook or by crook, to arrogate > themselves the right to

Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:44:05PM +0200, Sander Steffann wrote: RIPE policy does regulate IP allocations and under what conditions you are allowed to have/transfer/etc them. I agree that RIPE policy cannot regulate an organisation's M itself, but what happens to IP allocations when M happens

Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

Hi Sasha, > The fact remains that policy has no business regulating into the > business transactions of members (vulgo M) and I oppose it for > that reason alone. RIPE policy does regulate IP allocations and under what conditions you are allowed to have/transfer/etc them. I agree that RIPE

Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 12:45:31AM +0200, Erik Bais wrote: As stated during the discussion at the AP, a change to the holdership will to fall under the same restrictions as the transfers currently, that was pointed out AND discussed since version 1. The fact remains that policy has no business

Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04 Dears, as mentioned during the policy session, I am opposing to this (version of) the policy proposal. While I was sure that I did voice this concern over the mailing list, I can not find the e-mail now. But I am sure I did voice this concern and the opposition

Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

Thanks Remco. We'll take your suggestion in mind before moving to last call. Regards, Erik Bais -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Remco van Mook [mailto:remco.vanm...@gmail.com] Verzonden: woensdag 25 mei 2016 9:53 Aan: address-policy-wg@ripe.net CC: Erik Bais

Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

] Namens Elvis Daniel Velea Verzonden: woensdag 25 mei 2016 10:28 Aan: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04 Dears, as mentioned during the policy session, I am opposing to this (version of) the policy proposal. While I was sure that I did voice

Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

Dears, as mentioned during the policy session, I am opposing to this (version of) the policy proposal. While I was sure that I did voice this concern over the mailing list, I can not find the e-mail now. But I am sure I did voice this concern and the opposition at previous RIPE Meeting(s).

Re: [address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

Please, go to https://ripe72.ripe.net/live/main/ . There is discussion about IPv4 proposals now. 2016-05-25 10:52 GMT+03:00 Remco van Mook : > > Dear all, > > as just mentioned during the address policy session, I'm withdrawing my > objection to 2015-04. While I do think

[address-policy-wg] opposition to 2015-04

Dear all, as just mentioned during the address policy session, I'm withdrawing my objection to 2015-04. While I do think a discussion about policy structure still needs to be held, I don't think it should hold up this proposal any longer. This can be fixed after adoption - as long as we're