[address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

Whilst I agree with the vast majority of your email it is absurd to retrospectively apply a newly adopted policy. I believe this would be a very unhealthy precedent to set.

Regards,
Adrian. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 7 Dec 2021, at 19:54, denis walker <ripedenis at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 at 18:44, Sebastian-Wilhelm Graf
> <ripe-lists at sebastian-graf.at> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello!
>> 
>> 
>> This has the advantage of being "fair"
>> 
> This depends on your definition of fairness. Let's be brutally honest
> here. Anyone who has set up 10, 20, 30 LIRs in the last couple of
> years and has received multiple /24s is intentionally circumventing
> the goal of the policy for financial gain. They are playing games for
> profit. Let's get the legal advice we need and stop these games. These
> are policies, not national/international laws. Policies are a set of
> rules for the RIPE NCC membership. Members have signed contracts
> agreeing to all policies and agreed changes to those policies. Nothing
> says a policy change cannot be retroactive. As Gert said, let's apply
> a policy change back to 1/1/21. If someone wants to challenge it in
> court...let them name and shame themselves. As a community/membership
> we should be willing to stand by our principles of fairness and let
> the RIPE NCC go to court to defend these principles. While IPv4 is
> still in use and essential for genuine new startup businesses, let's
> stand up to those who are playing these games for profit...for the
> good of the internet.
> 
> I don't know who any of these people are with multiple LIRs. But I am
> sure they are all subscribed to this mailing list and will do what
> they can to prevent policy changes that stop them from making profits.
> To re quote Daniel's famous phrase at the Database BoF, "Let's stop
> tinkering around the edges" of these policies, jump in at the deep end
> and fix the problem...to stop the blatant profiteering.
> 
> I am going to go one step further than Gert's proposal. Let's suspend
> the current policy pending a review. In other words, freeze the
> allocation of /24s. I am sure there is nothing in the PDP or anywhere
> else that allows for this. But there probably is nothing that
> disallows it either. Again let's have a legal review and take bold
> action.
> 
> I am probably going to get hammered for saying all this, but sometimes
> we need to make bold moves and set new precedences...
> 
> cheers
> denis
> co-chair DB-WG
> 
> -- 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/