[address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

On Tue, 7 Dec 2021 at 22:03, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 08:27:07PM +0000, Adrian Bolster wrote:
> > 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.

Despite the fact this precedence has already been set, as Gert
explained, why do you think it is absurd? These people are bending the
rules for profit against the interests of the industry. Let's bend the
rules back and stop them making a profit and maybe even lose money
from the fees they have already paid trying to profiteer. We should
use any available option that is not explicitly 'disallowed' to close
these loopholes.

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG

>
> Strictly speaking, all transfer policies have been applied retroactively
> (at some point, transfers were made possible for all resources that had
> been allocated or assigned before that point).  Also, we have done this
> when increasing the holding period for the /22s to 24 months - which,
> of course, people that made money of doing fast-LIRs did not like.
>
> So this has been done and can be done again.
>
> What we cannot do is retroactively disallow a transfer that has already
> been *done*, but deciding new policies for existing allocations and
> assignment is fully covered by the RIPE general service agreement.
>
> Gert Doering
>         -- NetMaster
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279