[address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

As I have mentioned before, getting a /22 only to sell it after a couple
weeks shows that it was only requested in order to make some money and not
for a real need. It's a small glitch that many took advantage of. Also the
merger & acquisition policy at that time suited your interests very well
but that's neither important.

What raises a question is the fact that you say you treat opinions based on
the person that issues that opinion and not just the idea and that you
induce the idea that a minority's voice should be ignored because it's
obvious a minority would just oppose the majority. These are the problems
that need to be dealt with. I will never support discrimination based on
appartenance to a minority or personal feelings based on previous
experience.

Yes, start praising people if that's the purpose of this list. Hitler was
also a very praised man. Let's stop with the personal feelings between us
and discuss the ideas which are the important ones. I will not bring into
discussion the "petty crime" that you did by taking advantage of the
policies and putting aside a /22 from the last /8. It was wrong of me to
mention it and it really is not important at all.

Ciprian


On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 02:34:40PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> > It's a simple question from a member of the community to one of the WG
> > Chairs: did you abuse the last /8 or not ? Do you consider yourself a
> > neutral arbitrer or not ? Do you consider yourself the one that should be
> > judging others ? Or is it your "job" to shut the voices that are not
> > according to your interests ?
>
> Since you insist on riding that horse, I can no longer ignore it - so
> you'll have your answer.  On record.
>
> Yes, one of the LIRs that I represent in RIPE member issues (de.space)
> is holding two /22s out of 185/8.  The second /22 came into this LIR
> together with two /19s, some equipment, an extra employee, and a number
> of customers when we acquired a smaller regional ISP in 2014.
>
> As per community policy, this is well within letter and *spirit* of the
> policy - the LIR acquired was not "set up to get a /22 and be bought"
> (it existed for some 15 years), it was providing ISP services, and
> there were reasons that do not need to be disclosed that the owners wanted
> to sell it, which had nothing to do with IP addresses.  The acquisition
> went through the regular M&A process with the RIPE NCC, and all documents
> were properly scrutinized (and I can tell stories how much detail the
> NCC will check, and how much paperwork is involved).
>
>
> Does the number of IP addresses one of the LIRs I can represent hold
> have any relevance on my serving as WG chair?  No.
>
>
> Am I neutral regarding address policy?  Well, I do my best.
>
> Sometimes this is not easy, as I do have strong concerns for the well-being
> of the Internet globally and in the RIPE region - but this is why there
> is two chairs here: Sander will double-check every decision made, and
> everything is public anyway.  Summaries are written for a reason, and
> decisions are based *on posts on the list*, so it does not really matter
> how neutral I am, as everything is public, and you can double-check the
> conclusions (and possible call up the arbitration procedure).
>
>
> So, yes, I consider myself still suitable as a WG chair for the address
> policy WG.
>
> Gert Doering
>         -- APWG chair
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161019/ebd92acf/attachment.html>