Re: [address-policy-wg] Revisiting RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01

[Andre Oppermann oppermann@localhost]

Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2008 at 08:21:53PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> > > This was discussed many times at RIPE meetings.  Not at just one, but
> > > several.  The final decision to put this into the charging scheme was made
> > > at the General Meeting in Dubai, but it was talked about at a couple of others.
> > excuse?  i thought decisions are made on list, not at meetings.
> This was one of the core problems of 2007-01 - the APWG can not decide
> on the charging scheme.  We can discuss things (which we did, here and
> in the meetings), but in the end, the charging scheme is decided by the
> RIPE members AGM - and it's one of the few things where we actually 
> decide by *vote* in RIPE land.
> Every RIPE member receives the invitations to the AGM, and the invitation
> contained the draft of the to-be-installed charging scheme.  It was sent
> out well in advance, and there is an option to give proxy votes to other
> LIRs if you can't attend yourself.
>
> The majority of the LIRs that attended the meeting (or sent proxy votes)
> voted for the acceptance of the new charging scheme.
The problem is that RIPE NCC can't legally retroactively charge feed
for something that was, at the time of assignment, covered by a one-time
fee. It also raises serious (EU) anti-trust questions. And no, having a
"democratic" AGM vote does not make it OK to retroactively disadvantage
the members who voted against it or did not vote.

--
Andre Oppermann

Internet Business Solutions AG
Zürich, Switzerland