[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

* Sascha Luck [ml] <apwg at 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 581 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150609/7b8699c5/attachment.sig>