[address-policy-wg] question about IPv4 legacy and transfers - should we convert legacy to non-legacy with transfers?

On 15.07.2019 14:02, Tore Anderson wrote:
> You could make the opposite argument too, i.e., that it would be unfair behaviour by the RIPE community to try and retroactively annex legacy space in this way by unilaterally applying terms and conditions that were never agreed to in the first place.

Just as a reminder, this actually was done with ripe-452, when space that was handed out in 1993 under the new RIR regime, much later dubbed "PI", got strings attached retroactively: "According to policy detailed in ripe-452 […], a company holding Internet number resources must sign an End User Assignment Agreement with a Local Internet Registry (LIR) of their choice, or with the RIPE NCC directly by becoming a RIPE NCC member (LIR)". Thus there is precedence for "unilaterally applying terms and conditions that were never agreed to in the first place" by the RIPE Community; this happened in 2009 and was applied to address space handed out up to 16 years prior to any such terms and conditions.

As for Jordi's approach, I agree with »don't fix it if it ain't broken«, and in terms of Legacy space I fail to see an issue in current policy.

Regards,
-kai