This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] what's "non-discriminatory"?
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] what's "non-discriminatory"?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jim Reid
jim at rfc1035.com
Fri Sep 18 10:08:51 CEST 2009
> It isn't "bad luck", it is a function of having a limited resource. > Bakeries do not get sued when they run out of cupcakes. FWIW I am not a lawyer either. However I do know that anybody can sue anyone over anything. Whether their case has validity or even reaches court is another matter. So the cupcake customer could sue the bakery. And the bakery could counter-sue the customer to make them buy cupcakes before they run out. > I suspect all RIPE needs to do is ensure polices are non- > discriminatory Indeed. But define "non-discriminatory". Current address policies discriminate against those who can't afford NCC membership. Or don't speak English. I think it might be advisable to get legal advice on the impact of proposed address policy changes: eg They provide an impact assessment or something like that as part of the PDP.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] what's "non-discriminatory"?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]