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

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 05:01:58PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
>Actually while it was "according to the letter of the policy", I
>think it will be hard to find someone to actually say "it was
>according to the spirit of the last-/8 policy".  So I'd
>challenge the "reasonable" in your statement.

A LIR now joining the RIPE NCC has no way of determining what the
"spirit" of a policy is. (bar, perhaps, reading all apwg
discussions leading to it) The letter of the document is all that
counts and IPRAs can't make determinations based on the "spirit"
either, otherwise this proposal would not be necessary.
So, yes, an assumption that one can join the NCC now and get a
/22 with the intent to "sell" it is reasonable. 
Much as the assumption that one can join the NCC now and receive
a /22 to assign it to customers, is. There are already ideas - in
this very discussion - about forcing LIRs to return all v4 space
not already assigned and, if that ever becomes a proposal, this
very discussion will be used to argue that that would not be
retroactive.

>Well, so you say "it will not stop the bad guys from doing their
>stuff in the next few months, so we should not do it at all, so
>they can keep up the business for the next years", am I
>understanding this correctly?

I'm saying that endangering a lot of innocents - via an, in my
opinion, dangerous precedent - is too high a price to pay to catch
a limited number of "baddies". 

For the record, before I get accused of acting in bad faith
again, I have no dog in this race. I'm not managing any
allocations that are either up for transfer or, ttbomk, younger
than 2 years.

rgds,
Sascha Luck